Talk:Detransition

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)