Talk:Detransition

a new article from Reuters

Reuters released this article, might be of use.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/ Kerubis (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see this investigative report from Reuters is already linked above for consideration.

Robin Respaut, Chad Terhune and Michelle Conlin (December 22, 2022). Youth in Transition: Why detransitioners are crucial to the science of gender care. Reuters. Cedar777 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The main subject of the article, Dr. Kinnon MacKinnon, is a professor who transitioned. He mentions the challenges of having cooperation of people who wish to detransition. He and other researchers cited in the article have mentioned that people and institutions are reluctant to cooperate with the research. Dr Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist in Oregon, said that "“People are terrified to do this research,” and she cited vitriol against researchers as an impediment against doing research in the area.Dogru144 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also this article in The Atlantic from January 2023 that is co-authored by Kinnon MacKinnon and Leo Valdez titled: "Take Detransitioners Seriously"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/detransition-transgender-nonbinary-gender-affirming-care/672745/ Cedar777 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and this should be added to the lede "rare". DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is also the quotation from a peer reviewed investigative article in the British Medical Journal (which also was cover story, i.e. "Editors' choice"): "but two recent studies suggest that as many as 20-30% of patients may discontinue hormone treatment within a few years."

Where does this go in the lede? Jdbrook talk 08:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Vandenbussche study

I question the inclusion of the Vandenbussche 2021 study on detransitioners; it is reminiscent of the more recent 2021 Littman study which appeared more neutral but in practice was more of the same biased and flawed research deliberately crafted to inflate the issue of detransition and ROGD. Littman states in the study that she collected participants from detrans communities and more neutral sources like WPATH and APA professionals. However the study, as far as I recall, does not provide any information on what proportion of participants came from which source.

Littman's study also cites all sorts of anti-trans organizations like 4thwavenow and researchers like Kenneth J. Zucker, Vandenbussche's study seems much the same. It is important to note that forming detrans communities and talking about detransition isn't inherently anti-trans but the reality is most detrans organizations align themselves with anti-trans politics, even if they present themselves as neutral organizations. Specifically for the Vandenbussche study, the survey used was shared by Post-Trans, who seem like a neutral organization but a look at their twitter page shows they retweeted Genspect, an explicitly anti-trans, gender critical organization.

It also recruited from r/detrans, of which a look through their top posts of all-time shows many detrans people sharing their experiences, which isn't the problem, but what is a problem are posts like this in which explicitly anti-trans views are supported and validated by its users. Other posts talk about 'gender ideology' and describing transgender and sometimes queer communities on the whole as cults are cult-like with positive reception.

All of this leads me to believe that this study is too biased in its methodology to be reliable and should not be included amongst higher-quality evidence we do have.

Fjgwey12 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions of court cases

Recently there was a mass addition of court cases backed primarily by WP:PRIMARY sources. There are a few secondary sources included, but the secondary sources are pretty minor, and some of them are unreliable. The edit has been reverted several times now, but there are a few editors who are trying to force the content into the article without seeking consensus. I think it's time to talk about the issue and discuss the edits, and whether they are appropriate. Generally this discussion would be opened up by the editors who wish to add the content, but it seems that they just want to keep adding it even when it has been reverted by multiple other editors. Hist9600 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised to see editors revert to restore this obviously disputed material. It's definitely problematic, as it leans so heavily on primary and unreliable sources. Happy to hear more about why we should include it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are many good reasons why this shouldn't be included. The over-reliance on primary court records is a huge issue for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, as are the unreliable sources. As I said in my recent removal edit summary the BLP issues alone are enough that per WP:BLPRESTORE the content cannot be restored without a consensus here first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

US Military study

I'm for the time being removing the Roberts study not for MEDRS reasons (as I originally reacted at a quick glance at the article), but rather because, looking at its actual methodology more closely, it didn't actually track detransitions, just who got their hormones from the US military's pharmacy system and who stopped getting their hormones from the military's pharmacy system over a period between 2009 and 2018, during which there was a notable trans military ban. Snokalok (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Marchiano (2017)

Recently I have seen more prominence being given to Lisa Marchiano (2017), including in the WP:LEAD. Is this prominence WP:DUE? I see in her study, she refers to Jungian archetypes, "destructive psychic epidemics," being transgender as social contagion, and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). Is this really a reliable source to be using for a medical topic such as this? Hist9600 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The study in question was published in the journal Psychological Perspectives, a journal devoted to promoting Jungian thought:

Published since 1970 by the C. G. Jung Institute of Los Angeles, this unique and substantial publication voices, explores and documents a wide range of professional and personal issues related to Jungian thought and practice.

In other words, not a mainstream journal on modern psychology. The abstract of the paper starts out with:

Having lived through both World Wars, Jung was aware of the dangers of what he termed "psychic epidemics." He discussed the spontaneous manifestation of an archetype within collective life as indicative of a critical time during which there is a serious risk of a destructive psychic epidemic. Currently, we appear to be experiencing a significant psychic epidemic that is manifesting as children and young people coming to believe that they are the opposite sex, and in some cases taking drastic measures to change their bodies.

Author description:

Lisa Marchiano is a writer, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and certified Jungian analyst in private practice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

I'm not seeing anything indicating that this qualifies as WP:MEDRS. Hist9600 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I say go ahead and remove the source, though it's used to back up a relatively uncontroversial claim here, i.e. that studies of detransition are of disputed quality. Probably best to find a better source for that statement than to remove the statement altogether. Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Censorship" in opening?

The third paragraph of the introduction reads: Academic research into detransition is underdeveloped. Professional interest in the phenomenon has been met with contention, and some scholars have argued there is censorship around the topic. There are 5 citations for this claim. However, none seem to even mention the word "censorship"? Zenomonoz (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's supposed to be about a "chilling effect" or something like that? Or journals refusing to publish (although I doubt it)? But even if so it should be adjusted for clarity. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

At a glance this seems to be referring to Bath Spa University in 2017 rejecting a psychotherapist's proposed thesis on "trans regret" as being potentially "politically incorrect", which was picked up by various outlets and academics crying censorship. In 2021, BSU later told PinkNews that the ethics committee had rejected it over concerns of methodology and confidentiality rather than subject matter. I think some scholars have argued there is censorship around the topic and Some researchers perceive there to be an atmosphere of censorship around studying the phenomenon are a fair summary, although it might warrant further elaboration. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

For these two lines, the citations are swapped and therefore incorrect for the respective sentences. Please change them.

"A 2022 5-year follow up study of 317 socially transitioned transgender children published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that 94% retained a binary transgender identity, 3.5% identified as non-binary, and 2.5% identified as cisgender. A 2022 study of 720 trans adolescents who started puberty blockers found 98% of them continued on to hormone replacement therapy. Most childhood desisters go on to identify as cisgender and gay, bisexual, or lesbian."

5 year follow-up study link: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected

Study of hormone therapy: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext#%20 Fjgwey12 (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)