Misplaced Pages

Talk:Detransition: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:09, 7 November 2019 editJokestress (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,851 edits →Amber Roberts 2015 Vice article: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:44, 25 October 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,843,239 editsm -{{BLP others}}; +blp=other (request)Tag: AWB 
(523 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{BLP others}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=gg}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C|importance=low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=C|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/NJIT/Introduction_to_Sociology_-_Honors_Section_(Fall_2018) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | term=Fall 2018 }}
}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}}{{User:MiszaBot/config|archive = Talk:Detransition/Archive %(counter)d|algo = old(30d)}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config|archive = Talk:Detransition/Archive %(counter)d|algo = old(30d)}}


__TOC__ __TOC__


== RfC for Medref tag == == Article for transition regret? ==


This article currently distinguishes detransition from "transition regret", saying for example "The term is distinct from the concept of 'regret'".


Is there already a Misplaced Pages article for the concept of "transition regret"? Does anyone have thoughts on whether we should establish one?
Seeking fresh, outside, neutral opinions on the "Occurrence" section's sources, per the Medref tag, please. Previous discussion is at ]. Please note this page is tagged "Controversial".


I was reading the recent article
The Medref tag was added 2017 December 27, 15 months ago. At that time, the article overall had 16 sources, all from the news. The medical section referenced 5 of those news sources, 2 of which referred to the same story.
*{{cite journal |last1=Barbee |first1=Harry |last2=Hassan |first2=Bashar |last3=Liang |first3=Fan |title=Postoperative Regret Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Recipients of Gender-Affirming Surgery |journal=JAMA Surgery |date=27 December 2023 |doi=10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6052}}

and wondering whether this information could be here, in a regret article, or elsewhere. ]] 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Today, the article has 61 sources: 5 from books, 13 from medical journals, 32 of which are from news, and 11 from online sources. The medical section references 26 of those sources: 2 from books, 11 from journals, 15 from news, 1 from general online. Of the 11 journal sources, 2 of them reference the other 9.
{{collapse top|Veering-off topic. ]. –] (] • ]) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)}}

:There absolutely should be a section on this page for transition regret but that reality is too hard to swallow for the trans community. This page has been propagandized to hell and back. ] (]) 19:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this expansion of quantity and quality of sources, is the Medref tag still needed?
::It hasn't, but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise with reliable sources. ] (]) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

::As someone who is trans, allow me to make a comment.
Thank you, ] (]) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::First of all, I don't think there are many trans people who are opposed to more research and details on actual regret in transtion due to people genuinely feeling that their transition didnt align with their gender identity. However, I don't think the results would give you the answers youre looking for.
:It's good that there's been a big increase in the use of MEDRS-compliant references, but the 32 news citations suggests maybe that the tag is still appropriate. We need to be moving to a point where there are almost no non-MEDRS-compliant references for medical claims. ] (]) 08:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
::If you'd like to, you could follow the sources that Misplaced Pages sites, check out the studies, and draw your own conclusions about the research and it's validity. However, I get the impression that your interest in detransition is purely because of dislike of trans people, rather than because of real concern. Feel free to prove me wrong though, I dont want to make assumptions about you.

::It's okay to have opinions, but we all sometimes need to take a step back and evaluate not just whether our opinions align with reality, but also how our opinions affect ourselves and others. No one is exempt from this, not you, not me, not anyone. We should always be open to changing our minds so we can avoid becoming bitter and hateful, and avoid harming others.
:: Thanks for replying. The majority of news sources support content outside the medical section, to cover the social and legal aspects of detransition, which don't require MedRS. News sources within the medical section only support the journal sources as secondary sources. ] (]) 17:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
::Now, here's my two cents, (and feel free to present evidence as to why I should change my opinion,) I think that genuine transition regret likely disproportionately affects non-binary individuals because of the nature of their identity. If someone feels that they don't fit in with the male or female category, they are obviously going to be dissatisfied with teh changes to their body when for the most part gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery don't have clear pathways or many options for people who don't want to have the body of a man or the body of a woman.
:::News sources for social and legal issues are fine. In terms of medical content, ] discourages us from using any news sources. If they're just repeating what MEDRS-compliant sources say, they can be deleted from there. ] (]) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
::As well, educating not just people interested in transition, but all people on the topic would help reduce detransition rates. Maybe the layman wouldn't need to know a lot, but if people are educated on spotting ACTUAL symptoms of gender dysphoria and learning what gender identity actually means, many people who would have detransitioned had they begun transition would realize that they wouldn't benefit from transition.

::Educating doctors and general practitioners on the matter would not only make transition easier for both binary and non-binary transgender individuals, but it would also make doctors far less likely to diagnose someone who is actually cisgender with gender dysphoria.
:::WP:MEDRS does not mean that all medical sources are okay. It clearly discourages ]. It also goes over quality matters. ] (]) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
::Sadly, I dont think youre actually interested in any of that. I think most likely, you believe "transgenderism" is a social contagion and degeneracy of the correct social order, and only want more details on detransition and transition regret because you believe it would invalidate "transgenderism" and the transgender experience, which you despise for some reason. Feel free to tell me what that reason is if you'd like. ] (]) 23:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I think it's unfair to assume someone who is frustrated with the way detransitioners are covered in media and public discourse is transphobic. Discussing detransition and transition regret is a valid and important part of the broader conversation about gender transition. These experiences deserve attention and should not be dismissed or minimized.
===Staszek Lem's uneducated opinion ===
:::There are a myriad of reasons for wanting to discuss detransition and to be frustrated with the way the topic is currently discussed. It's unfair to attribute a single motivation to everyone who brings up this topic in a way you don't like. This is a very hurt group of people, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Many of them underwent permanent procedures and treatments at a very young age. Some of them are unable to breast feed their children (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/global-womens-health/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2023.1073053/full). Their grief, anger, and pain is very real.
This is a malformed RFC. You need to ask a ''specific'' question. The talk section you link is a chaotic discussion of several things. RFC usually asks for uninvolved editors like me who have no idea what was going on with the article. You ''have'' to brief them, otherwise sorry, ].
:::Detransition stories are diverse and complex. I've personally seen how bullied some of the more outspoken members of the detransitioner community are on places like X and by institutions like the NYTimes (see their Chloe Cole hit piece for instance).

:::Creating space for open, respectful discussions about all aspects of transition, including regret, can lead to better support and informed decision-making for everyone. Maligning someone for being frustrated in this instance is really not assuming good faith. ] (]) 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Now, specific comments:

First, The section has LOTS of references, but at the moment I looked it I get a strong whiff of original research, namely ]. This is exactly how SYNTH texts look like: a reference per word: {{tq|have been few in number, of disputed quality, and politically controversial.)}}.

Second, how many of the ''medical'' refs are primary and how many secondary sources? To figure it out, this is ''your'' job, not commenters'.

In other words, if I were you, the RFC request must be something like this: {{tq|Of 100 footnotes, 30 refer to news, 20 to primary, and 50 to secondary sources. However the 50 2ndary ones refer to only 5 the same authiors. Do you think the Medref tag is still required?}} ] (]) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks for replying. I opened the RfC; I wanted to avoid leading the question on this controversial topic. I've reworded above per your feedback. On perceived synth of quoted sentence: A and B are not cited to claim an uncited C; A, B, and C are cited, and A + B ≠ C. ] (]) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

* As commonly happens, {{ping|Staszek Lem}} makes good points and I concur. However, it seems to me that this entire issue is not one that needs urgent resolution, and the very fact that we are agonising over it suggests that we are in reasonable doubt, which in turn means that we should leave the tag for another year or two (when possibly we might have more instances and publications as a basis for something more like a definitive basis for a decision?) As things stand, I may be prejudiced, but I don't think that any reader of the current version with its cautionary tag should be in no doubt that the text is tentative, but helpfully intended, and serves as a basis for further reading if desired. ] (]) 14:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:*Thanks for replying. The {{tq|very fact that we are agonising}} could indicate bias over a politically controversial topic, rather than {{tq|reasonable doubt}}. It's unclear what specific changes are needed to address the tag, other than the repeated ''more''. The quantity and quality of content and sources here are comparable to those of ] and ], which are free of complaint. ] (]) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

== Individual Accounts ==

Hi all. We have a lot of individual accounts at this point, and I worry things could get cluttered. I thought I'd check in about notability, and defer to group consensus. Thoughts on comedian Will Franken's detransition? Worth adding? https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/30/comedian-who-came-out-as-transgender-reverts-back-to-a-man/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-i-began-living-as-a-woman-then-decided-to-transition-back-a6788051.html <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The section's length is still in fine proportion to the other sections. There may come a day when it should break into a separate article, but not yet. Regarding Will Franken, I remember when this comedian's story broke (here it is also on ). It generated interesting conversations at the time (in reliable and unreliable sources, positive and negative). I think it's notable enough for addition. ] (]) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

::The list is growing and is near the point of becoming a random collection. If it gets any larger, it should follow the same rule as for other lists on Misplaced Pages: if people are notable enough to have an article, list them. If not, don't. ] (]) 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:::If someone is featured in one article in one RS, ''e.g.'' Anthony and Robinson, then that does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. We need to see an individual be covered by multiple RS. ] (]) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:::: Perhaps we could begin to reword the section as prose that focuses more on shared social themes and experiences, and to be less like a list of persons. ] (]) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:Sarah comes across to me as a less serious case and perhaps something of a publicity thing. If mentioned at all, evidence of the publicity aspect should be included, but it seems to me like a blip on the screen of the larger issue, in spite of the coverage it generated at the time. ] (]) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:I've been thinking about this, and while Jonathunder's suggestion of paring the list to people who have articles would bring it in line with similar articles I can think of (e.g., the list in ] is kept to only ones who have articles), I was hesitant, because it'd also remove much of the section's contents. However, the more I think about it...are there other articles where we give paragraphs to multiple non-notable i.e. non-article-having people's individual experiences of the topic? ] doesn't seem to contain accounts by individual AAs of what it's like to be African American, ] doesn't seem to contain a section of accounts of (non-notable or, to much extent, even notable) trans women's experiences of transitioning and being trans, ] doesn't seem to contain individual accounts of people who've had SRS. The closest I can find is ], which has blurbs on individuals, but apparently only ones who meet ] i.e. have their own articles, which is back to Jonathunder's point. I'd say, remove anyone who's only attested in one RS, per Bondegezou, but whether to include other people who may not have articles but are covered in enough RS to suggest they have some importance (e.g. possibly Walt Heyer, who I ran into mentions of while looking up something else related to this article the other day), I'm not sure.<br>The suggestion above to refocus on (or even just, add content on) commonalities would be good ''to the extent that'' there are RS pointing things out ''as'' being commonalities or being generally the case&mdash;we should avoid just looking at a number of accounts and saying "well, several/most/all of these accounts have feature X, so...", because that's liable to run into ]/]. (One possible commonality I saw suggested in the sources I was looking through yesterday is that people who detransition tend to be at earlier stages of transition, it being very rare among people who've had surgery. Something else to look into would be whether any RS report on it being more common among one sex/gender or another.) ] (]) 16:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::I concur with that.
::If there are particularly famous cases, I think they can warrant inclusion, but those should only be exceptional cases. For example, Christiane Völling gets explicitly mentioned at ] for a specific reason as a first. ] (]) 16:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|Bondegezou}} I agree that the individual cases of detransition are numerous enough that not all of them should be included (unlike, say, ], where the small handful of possible cases are all mentioned).

<s>I've been a bit reluctant to open this potential can of worms, but how about drafting another section called something like "associated activism", to explain the viewpoints of detransitioners publicly known for their advocacy like Callahan, Heyer, and possibly Anthony, as well as other people who've written extensively about detransitioning from various perspectives and received secondary-source coverage like ], ] (the anti-gay marriage public intellectual guy—I'm very surprised he doesn't have an article), ], and ]? The "What is a Woman" New Yorker article has some background information as well about the views of radical feminists and transfeminists. Cheers, ]] 10:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)</s> <small>Never mind, I've realised this is unnecessary and overall a bad idea. ]] 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
:If individuals are of particular note, they should have their own articles. They could be mentioned briefly here, perhaps in an annotated See Also section. We have some text discussing activism around detransitioning: we could include notable people within that...? ] (]) 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

::The Mitchell and Anthony stories were removed. I can see Mitchell as less notable, being reported by only two sources in a single month. Anthony has been covered in several sources over multiple years, so I re-added him with further refs. ] (]) 18:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I think this section remains the largest in the article. That seems wrong to me. Are all of these examples necessary? ] (]) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

::::OK, I've made a bold move: removed Robinson and Belovitch content (since their stories are more isolated in time), moved the sources that focused only on them to Further reading (they're good stories), and refocused remaining content on the more notable persons (with less "this magazine on that date" language). Hope this addresses the concerns without offending fans of the content. ] (]) 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think these new accounts could use some work. Specifically, I think it would be helpful to say *why* the blogs that they run are particularly notable, since I can't think of many other articles that list bloggers on the topic. Regarding the Lepovic section, {{tq|As his views became less essentialist}} sounds like editorializing to me. The articles I read don't mention essentialism or explain what it is. (?) I don't propose removing them entirely, but they certainly could be edited down. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">] ● ] ● ] ● ]</span>

::::::Revised. ] (]) 05:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

==Pride before the fall==
{{collapse top|title=off-topic discussion}}
Wiki loves Pride. ] Pride before the fall. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
:We currently discuss "regret" as a reason for ] in this article, particularly in the Occurrence section. They are distinct but substantially entwined concepts. As your source and this article notes, post-operative regret for gender-affirming surgeries is considerably rare, and—without dismissing the real experiences of that small minority—exists preeminently as a ] weaponized by those seeking to limit the bodily and social autonomy of trans people. I'm concerned that a split would distort or exaggerate the actual prevalence of such, and risk becoming a ] or ].
:If more high-quality sources exist on the topic, they should be probably used here. –] (] • ]) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::Will do! ] (]) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::I can see no reason why the rare incidence of transition regret would preclude better organization and information around the topic. Misplaced Pages's role is to serve as an encyclopedia of information, and as noted by the original commenter, it appears that the current page is falling short of that goal. Notably, many phenomena that impact far fewer humans have been deserving of their own pages e.g. ].
::It's unclear what is intended by "regret ... exists preeminently as a moral panic", but I worry it comes off as an attempt to leverage an affiliation as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting views. The role of Misplaced Pages is to be a neutral point of view ] and it would seem that the correct course of action is not to in some way hamper discussion and information, but rather to ensure that all viewpoints are represented.
::I do not, at all, understand the reference to ]. It is my understanding of your link that articles that veer away from their intended subject should ideally be split so that both topics can be addressed properly. That is exactly what's being proposed here to address the fact that transition regret and detransition are distinct, as mentioned in the article.
::As this is a contentious topic, I propose that we rely more on the stated guidelines of Misplaced Pages rather than personal opinions or guesses about potential future actions of unspecified third persons. ] (]) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


== What are 7,28 participants? (Or: cite note 5 seems just plain wrong) ==
== Neutrality Tag ==

Hi, I noticed this article has a neutrality tag on it, dated March 2019. I've reviewed the article and I do not see any POV problems at this time. Are there any current POV concerns? <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">] ]</span> 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{ping|May His Shadow Fall Upon You}} {{u|Mooeena}} added the tag in March 2019 (]) and started a discussion in the talk page: ]. Some things in the article have changed since March. One of the challenged statements is still there: {{tq|The number of detransitioners is unknown but growing.}}. Maybe Mooeena or someone else can elaborate on current major NPOV issues, if any. Best, --] (]) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::I think that, while the {{tq|unknown but growing}} sentence has a lot of sources, it clearly both contradicts and is encompassed by the earlier {{tq|Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly, with notable differences in terminology and methodology}} - ie. it looks like what we're doing is first saying that it varies greatly, then selectively citing people who say it's increasing. Also, the citations, on close examination, are mostly not very good - one person (or a few) saying they've seen more people is anecdotal evidence; preliminary findings shouldn't be reported as fact; Singal is a ]ed source whose opinions on this topic cannot be cited on this subject without in-line attribution (and who carefully hedges with "appeared to be"); and the last one says more ''youtube videoes'' are appearing, not detransitioners. At the very least several of those cites have to go, since they don't support the point being made. EDIT: By my reading only one study there seems to support the idea that there is solid, reliable evidence behind there being an increase rather than vague anecdotes, opinions, or preliminary findings. --] (]) 14:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::: Yes, Aquillion has it spot on. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">] ● ] ● ] ● ]</span> 01:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
::: FWIW I also agree with Aquillion's assessment. It seems like the earlier sentence ("...vary greatly...") says what the RS actually support saying. ] (]) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

::::This is a classic '''"phenomenon vs. term"''' political debate. This biased article ] a transphobic ideology akin to the ]. I propose adding a few sources to improve neutrality, starting with this one:
::::*Robinson CM, Spivey SE (2019). Ungodly Genders: Deconstructing Ex-Gay Movement Discourses of “Transgenderism” in the US. ''Social Sciences'' {{doi|10.3390/socsci8060191}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)</small>

==Sam Hope 2019 book==

] came out with a book this year that nicely summarizes the bias underpinning this entire article. I propose we include this quotation:

:Detransition is held up as the bogeyman, is held against trans people. Our transitions must be sure, and certain, and final, otherwise they are not legitimate. But of course, real life is much messier. As a therapist, a big part of my job is to be able to stay with client's uncertainty and hold quite a posing desires and needs.

:Trans people detransition. And retransition. And alter trajectory. And change their names and pronouns more than once. All this is entirely valid. We can know that transition benefits the people who undertake it, but we can never know if transition is right for us, or the person in front of us. We cannot cure someone of being trans, but what they do about being trans is up to them. However, society will have a heavy bias towards 'gender transition is bad,' so we should probably worry less about a trans person being unduly influenced to ''not'' transition.


The text summarizing ] claims that it encompasses 7,28 participants. This is not a number that makes any sense, and it made me want to understand this further.
:Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice towards transition perhaps because there are still underlying social attitudes that it is never the right choice. The extent to which trans people are subject to gatekeeping, having their decisions questioned, or having barriers placed in their way, is quite extreme.


I checked the referenced page, and it makes even less sense. The authors claim "We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic" but the Misplaced Pages page says "A systematic review of twenty-seven studies".
Source: Hope, Sam (2019). ''Person-Centred Counselling for Trans and Gender Diverse People: A Practical Guide'' ] {{ISBN|9781784509378}}
] (]) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


I could find no mention of the total number of participants, nor any trace of the authors summarizing the 'regret rate'.
:I'm struggling to think of another article that includes such a long quotation (other than articles ''about documents, which quote those documents''). If the source is "due", we could probably condense/summarize it in less than three paragraphs... ] (]) 19:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


This is a contentious subject and I'm not a well-seasoned editor on Misplaced Pages, so I do not want to make any changes to the actual page. I don't have any political agenda, but I'd like to see that the facts presented on Misplaced Pages is correct, so I'm hoping someone else with more confidence in editing this page could step up and fix this. ] (]) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
::Agree a summary would be preferable. Just including the full comment on Talk as it nicely outlines the issues. The key phrase in my opinion is "a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice." ] (]) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mag.icus}} I looked at the summary of the research and ].
:As you said, the text that was there made no sense. The source is the Public Policy institute at Cornell University, which seems reliable enough, so I thought that was worth keeping. ]] 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


== 'Forced detransition' ==
:::I agree with the inclusion as it does outline the whole issue well, to me a lot of the quotation is highly relevant...in clumsey cut down fashion
:::Our transitions must be sure, and certain, and final, otherwise they are not legitimate. But of course, real life is much messier. ..... Trans people detransition. And retransition. And alter trajectory. And change their names and pronouns more than once .... We can know that transition benefits the people who undertake it, but we can never :::know if transition is right for us, or the person in front of us. ...We cannot cure someone of being trans ...However... society will have a heavy bias towards 'gender transition is bad .... Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice towards transition perhaps because there :::are still underlying social attitudes that it is never the right choice. The extent to which trans people are subject to gatekeeping, having their decisions questioned, or having barriers placed in their way, is quite extreme. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


Do any of the sources use this phrase? The phrase 'forced detransition' in the context of these bills implies that medical treatment is a requirement of transitioning, which isn't the case. Suggesting that it is negates the trans identity of all those who transition without medical intervention or counselling services. Globally that's a significant number. ] (]) 06:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
== Amber Roberts 2015 Vice article ==
:I checked a few sources and did not find the phrase.
:Also, I get what you are saying - "forced detransition" is not quite what is happening. Most of this is the legal prohibition of gender affirmation. Some of this is medicine, and some of the forced transition here may be government orders to use a particular toilet.
:What does anyone else see? Who knows more about options for terms here? ]] 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::Maybe "forced medical detransition" at least in the case of medicine. The problem is that even in the medical setting it varies depending a lot on what treatment an individual is recieving. Also I'm not expert on proposed US law, but some of those state laws seem to actually ban "opposite gender presentation" in a vague way that differs depending on the state but could seemingly ban any public transition. Maybe adding commentary on these proposed laws would be a solution to the vagueness of the heading.
::] (]) 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


== The German paper ==
Here's another nice secondary source with some first-hand reports and expert commentary to counter the pervasive bias in this article:


I agree with {{u|firefangledfeathers}} of {{u| Publius Obsequium}}. Although P.O. framed it as a study on desistance... the paper needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not measuring "desistance". It is measuring ''diagnostic persistence'', and there are many technicalities surrounding ICD diagnoses, so we cannot know if patients actually desisted or settled into a cisgender identity. From what I have read online, many transgender people would be incorrectly captured in the non-persisting statistic, despite still identifying as trans. ] (]) 09:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
:This may explain why it's more common for someone who has originally transitioned from male to female to want to detransition; the eight most common examples of those who have detransitioned are all male to female to male.


== Gender desistance and desistance rate ==
:I only came across eight people in the world online who have actually gone through with it. "The numbers are so incredibly low," ] told me. "If anything, it reinforces the validity of gender transition in the first place."


Should we include that in the article? It's usually used for people who "grow out of being trans" before starting medical transition, or didn't even consider transitioning in the first place, but it's often conflated with detransition to inflate the rate at which it happens (to 70-80% or more). Maybe it's better to include it and explain why it's not the same thing, than just ignore it? ] (]) 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Roberts, Amber (November 17, 2015). '']''

Latest revision as of 22:44, 25 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Detransition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Article for transition regret?

This article currently distinguishes detransition from "transition regret", saying for example "The term is distinct from the concept of 'regret'".

Is there already a Misplaced Pages article for the concept of "transition regret"? Does anyone have thoughts on whether we should establish one?

I was reading the recent article

  • Barbee, Harry; Hassan, Bashar; Liang, Fan (27 December 2023). "Postoperative Regret Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Recipients of Gender-Affirming Surgery". JAMA Surgery. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6052.

and wondering whether this information could be here, in a regret article, or elsewhere. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Veering-off topic. WP:NPA. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
There absolutely should be a section on this page for transition regret but that reality is too hard to swallow for the trans community. This page has been propagandized to hell and back. 97.120.249.14 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't, but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise with reliable sources. Nemo (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone who is trans, allow me to make a comment.
First of all, I don't think there are many trans people who are opposed to more research and details on actual regret in transtion due to people genuinely feeling that their transition didnt align with their gender identity. However, I don't think the results would give you the answers youre looking for.
If you'd like to, you could follow the sources that Misplaced Pages sites, check out the studies, and draw your own conclusions about the research and it's validity. However, I get the impression that your interest in detransition is purely because of dislike of trans people, rather than because of real concern. Feel free to prove me wrong though, I dont want to make assumptions about you.
It's okay to have opinions, but we all sometimes need to take a step back and evaluate not just whether our opinions align with reality, but also how our opinions affect ourselves and others. No one is exempt from this, not you, not me, not anyone. We should always be open to changing our minds so we can avoid becoming bitter and hateful, and avoid harming others.
Now, here's my two cents, (and feel free to present evidence as to why I should change my opinion,) I think that genuine transition regret likely disproportionately affects non-binary individuals because of the nature of their identity. If someone feels that they don't fit in with the male or female category, they are obviously going to be dissatisfied with teh changes to their body when for the most part gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery don't have clear pathways or many options for people who don't want to have the body of a man or the body of a woman.
As well, educating not just people interested in transition, but all people on the topic would help reduce detransition rates. Maybe the layman wouldn't need to know a lot, but if people are educated on spotting ACTUAL symptoms of gender dysphoria and learning what gender identity actually means, many people who would have detransitioned had they begun transition would realize that they wouldn't benefit from transition.
Educating doctors and general practitioners on the matter would not only make transition easier for both binary and non-binary transgender individuals, but it would also make doctors far less likely to diagnose someone who is actually cisgender with gender dysphoria.
Sadly, I dont think youre actually interested in any of that. I think most likely, you believe "transgenderism" is a social contagion and degeneracy of the correct social order, and only want more details on detransition and transition regret because you believe it would invalidate "transgenderism" and the transgender experience, which you despise for some reason. Feel free to tell me what that reason is if you'd like. 2607:FEA8:999E:9A00:8D04:83C9:5F96:FDC (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to assume someone who is frustrated with the way detransitioners are covered in media and public discourse is transphobic. Discussing detransition and transition regret is a valid and important part of the broader conversation about gender transition. These experiences deserve attention and should not be dismissed or minimized.
There are a myriad of reasons for wanting to discuss detransition and to be frustrated with the way the topic is currently discussed. It's unfair to attribute a single motivation to everyone who brings up this topic in a way you don't like. This is a very hurt group of people, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Many of them underwent permanent procedures and treatments at a very young age. Some of them are unable to breast feed their children (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/global-womens-health/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2023.1073053/full). Their grief, anger, and pain is very real.
Detransition stories are diverse and complex. I've personally seen how bullied some of the more outspoken members of the detransitioner community are on places like X and by institutions like the NYTimes (see their Chloe Cole hit piece for instance).
Creating space for open, respectful discussions about all aspects of transition, including regret, can lead to better support and informed decision-making for everyone. Maligning someone for being frustrated in this instance is really not assuming good faith. ViolanteMD (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We currently discuss "regret" as a reason for Detransition in this article, particularly in the Occurrence section. They are distinct but substantially entwined concepts. As your source and this article notes, post-operative regret for gender-affirming surgeries is considerably rare, and—without dismissing the real experiences of that small minority—exists preeminently as a moral panic weaponized by those seeking to limit the bodily and social autonomy of trans people. I'm concerned that a split would distort or exaggerate the actual prevalence of such, and risk becoming a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK.
If more high-quality sources exist on the topic, they should be probably used here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Will do! ViolanteMD (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I can see no reason why the rare incidence of transition regret would preclude better organization and information around the topic. Misplaced Pages's role is to serve as an encyclopedia of information, and as noted by the original commenter, it appears that the current page is falling short of that goal. Notably, many phenomena that impact far fewer humans have been deserving of their own pages e.g. Achumawi Language.
It's unclear what is intended by "regret ... exists preeminently as a moral panic", but I worry it comes off as an attempt to leverage an affiliation as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting views. The role of Misplaced Pages is to be a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and it would seem that the correct course of action is not to in some way hamper discussion and information, but rather to ensure that all viewpoints are represented.
I do not, at all, understand the reference to WP:COATRACK. It is my understanding of your link that articles that veer away from their intended subject should ideally be split so that both topics can be addressed properly. That is exactly what's being proposed here to address the fact that transition regret and detransition are distinct, as mentioned in the article.
As this is a contentious topic, I propose that we rely more on the stated guidelines of Misplaced Pages rather than personal opinions or guesses about potential future actions of unspecified third persons. ViolanteMD (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What are 7,28 participants? (Or: cite note 5 seems just plain wrong)

The text summarizing Detransition#cite note-5 claims that it encompasses 7,28 participants. This is not a number that makes any sense, and it made me want to understand this further.

I checked the referenced page, and it makes even less sense. The authors claim "We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic" but the Misplaced Pages page says "A systematic review of twenty-seven studies".

I could find no mention of the total number of participants, nor any trace of the authors summarizing the 'regret rate'.

This is a contentious subject and I'm not a well-seasoned editor on Misplaced Pages, so I do not want to make any changes to the actual page. I don't have any political agenda, but I'd like to see that the facts presented on Misplaced Pages is correct, so I'm hoping someone else with more confidence in editing this page could step up and fix this. Mag.icus (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mag.icus: I looked at the summary of the research and simply wrote a new statement.
As you said, the text that was there made no sense. The source is the Public Policy institute at Cornell University, which seems reliable enough, so I thought that was worth keeping. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

'Forced detransition'

Do any of the sources use this phrase? The phrase 'forced detransition' in the context of these bills implies that medical treatment is a requirement of transitioning, which isn't the case. Suggesting that it is negates the trans identity of all those who transition without medical intervention or counselling services. Globally that's a significant number. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:69C6:C11:9F81:FA18 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked a few sources and did not find the phrase.
Also, I get what you are saying - "forced detransition" is not quite what is happening. Most of this is the legal prohibition of gender affirmation. Some of this is medicine, and some of the forced transition here may be government orders to use a particular toilet.
What does anyone else see? Who knows more about options for terms here? Bluerasberry (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe "forced medical detransition" at least in the case of medicine. The problem is that even in the medical setting it varies depending a lot on what treatment an individual is recieving. Also I'm not expert on proposed US law, but some of those state laws seem to actually ban "opposite gender presentation" in a vague way that differs depending on the state but could seemingly ban any public transition. Maybe adding commentary on these proposed laws would be a solution to the vagueness of the heading.
LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The German paper

I agree with firefangledfeathers reversion of Publius Obsequium. Although P.O. framed it as a study on desistance... the paper needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not measuring "desistance". It is measuring diagnostic persistence, and there are many technicalities surrounding ICD diagnoses, so we cannot know if patients actually desisted or settled into a cisgender identity. From what I have read online, many transgender people would be incorrectly captured in the non-persisting statistic, despite still identifying as trans. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Gender desistance and desistance rate

Should we include that in the article? It's usually used for people who "grow out of being trans" before starting medical transition, or didn't even consider transitioning in the first place, but it's often conflated with detransition to inflate the rate at which it happens (to 70-80% or more). Maybe it's better to include it and explain why it's not the same thing, than just ignore it? Matinee71 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: