Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 2 January 2025 (→Rewriting to focus on reviews: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

	This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
LGBTQ+ studies This 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)

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)

I think I removed reference to desistance rates a while back, specifically because the source mentioned nothing about "detransition". If there are sources that clearly discuss desistance in the context of detransition, it might make sense to include. Part of the reason I also removed the desistance figure was because Google AI was using desistance figures as the detransiton rate.... so when you googled the detransition rate it showed up as "80%". Of course, those desistance figures are also controversial in part because the definition of "gender identity disorder" was broader than the requirements for "gender dysphoria" today, so it was expected that desistance rates would be high. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed genocide/forced detransition section

I've removed a paragraph that has been on the article for too long. Unfortunately, none of the sources seemed to verify it. The first source briefly discusses detransition in two sentences, addressing the subject of "regret" but doesn't discuss forcible detransition.

The Vox source and the MSNBC source do not mention "detransition" once. This addition was no doubt well meaning but things need to be WP:VER, on topic and users should always WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Perhaps there are other reliable sources that would warrant reinclusion of this topic. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Forced Detransition Already A Terrifying Reality in Some States as Washington Post Report Highlights How Anti-Transgender Rhetoric and Policies Have Ratcheted Up in State Capitals Across Country Human Rights Campaign
• This concerted effort by right-wing politicians has left those affected in Florida with a tough decision: leave their homes or potentially be forced to detransition if they remain. PinkNews
• LGBTQNation: Trans inmate forced to detransition as prison doctors try to inject her with testosterone
• NewsWeek: Fact Check: Has Tennessee Passed Bill to Make Trans Youth 'Detransition'?
• There has been little research done on the effects of forced detransition, which has only become a legislative tactic within recent years. Dazed Digital
• It’s a terrifying possibility for so many of us, as is forced detransition in some states. Intomore

Here's a quick list of sources to build it out, I'll come back to it in the next few days to have a go at rewriting the section!

I do want to state however, I don't think we should require sources say "forced detransition"/"forced to detransition" to be included. We already note in the article that detransition can be purely medical, and often due to societal/social factors. When a law criminalizes trans healthcare, all the people on it are pretty WP:BLUESKY-wise going to have to detransition or move. We can use the sources above, among others that more directly mention the phenomenon, as a base to start rebuilding the section, but from there we should include more general sources for statements like "X states have banned transgender healthcare in 2024" that contextualize the scope of the issue without directly noting it. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"I don't think we should require sources say "forced detransition"/"forced to detransition" to be included" – I agree, but I am talking about inclusion under a specific heading/paragraph about "forced detransition". That probably needs to be on topic. Any article that discusses detransition in general might warrant inclusion elsewhere in the article or under a modified heading. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the "Criminalization of gender-affirming care" section probably should be shifted to its own article. It would make a lot more sense. A lot of that section is not clearly related to detransition, but restricting people/children from medically transitioning in the first place. It reads like WP:SYNTH and original analysis. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I know we're talking about the forced detransition section, I'm saying, for example, we can cite a source that says "state laws in the US are forcing people who can't afford to flee to detransition", and then cite another source to say "X states have criminalized provision of GAC" since that changes often.

We should get rid of the criminalization section, merging what we can to a forced detransition section that states the general issue "laws banning trans healthcare de-factor force people to medically detransition".

A lot of that section is not clearly related to detransition, but restricting people/children from medically transitioning in the first place I just want to note that in these states minors have already been on trans healthcare. There are extremely rarely provisos to allow those already receiving it to continue, so it's not just stopping them starting but continuing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree with the changes. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rewriting to focus on reviews

As it stands, the article relies on a lot of primary studies and opinion pieces. We should be doing citing reviews directly as much as possible, so I'm creating this section to collate them before starting to rewrite the article based on them. If I miss some, please add them! These were found by google scholar, searching "detransition" in abstracts and toggling for reviews only since 2016.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles