Talk:Detransition: Difference between revisions
Update banned shell Tag: Reverted |
Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) m -{{BLP others}}; +blp=other (request) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{BLP others}} |
|||
{{Controversial}} |
{{Controversial}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=C| |
||
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}} |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}} |
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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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?
[edit]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)
|
- 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)
[edit]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'
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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)