Talk:Detransition

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

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.

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.

LGBTQ+ studies C‑class

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 14:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Forced detransition" section

It seems to me like the section titled "forced detransition" isn't actually, necessarily about forcing people to detransition so much as preventing or making it more difficult for people to transition in the first place. It seems like this section (and its subsections) need to be either retitled, reframed or moved into a separate (perhaps preexisting) article. If this weren't such a sensitive subject, I might've made the edits on my own but figured it best to pose the issue to the community first. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing someone from transitioning or making it difficult is most definitely forced detransition. There are many advocates who use this exact phrase in referring to this. There is no need to rename the section. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But how can someone "detransition" if they weren't allowed to transition in the first place? Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does both at the same time. Someone else later in transition would be affected by the same legislation. It wouldn’t just impact people who “haven’t” transitioned. Also, not all of transition is medical. Some is social. Some people socially transition before medically transitioning. Someone might be transitioning and is prevented from further transitioning. That is also a forced detransition, if partial. And often, the intent behind the legislation is to detransition trans people. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detransition and regret

This article describes the flaws in the conclusion of previous studies that ‘only 1%’ has regret.

Can somebody adapt the main text? The info is not correct.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

84.83.131.154 (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you did surgeory you cannot retransition and best to do then is to stay trans. But you can still have regret. YouTube is full of examples like that.

Many of the studies are confusing detransition during transition with regret. Regret is after complete transition, not during. Of course you can also regret during, but the issue is the post-regretters.

To get a good view, you need long term research. Many studies check after a few years. Those are the years of gender euphoria. The hangover appears after the party though.

Many studies lose contact with ex-patients. They move, or don’t want to participate or died. Therefore the noise in the % is significant and ‘only 1%’ is always a false conclusion. The noise is easily 10-30%. It is naieve to think the leftovers will score equal to the ones that have disappeared.

84.83.131.154 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can not include that article.

On medical articles like this, we have strict sourcing requirements (WP:MEDRS). We should be using the highest quality peer-reviewed articles summarizing the current state of research. This article is not a peer-reviewed summary but an Article Commentary, an unreviewed primary source.
This was funded by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a WP:FRINGE advocacy group, and written by members of the same. To quote some researchers from the Yale School of Medicine: The long list of citations omits mainstream scientific articles that do not support the SEGM agenda, and the list includes a large number of letters to the editor, which are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked,114 as well as other sources of little scientific value, including opinion pieces and case studies. and [SEGM]'s 4 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities – a fact that the SEGM website does not disclose. These 14 often write letters to the editor of mainstream scientific publications; these letters appear in the list of publications on the website (even though letters to the editor typically are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked). (Our review shows that the group of 14 has a total of 39 relevant publications and that 75% of these are letters to the editor.) [1]

TLDR, this paper is not a reliable medical source and that is a feature not a bug as it is published by a group known for pushing misinformation and avoiding peer-review. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word for this?

Wikipedia has an article called Transphobia.

Is there a similar kind of word for people who feel that way about detransitioners?

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious candidate would be detransphobia, for which Google returns a handful of attestations. An article in the Bulletin of Applied Transgender Studies defines that term as fear or hatred of detrans people and the existence of detransition, but it is otherwise fairly rare. "To our knowledge, this term appears to be in use over social media but has yet to be discussed within academic scholarship.".

Unless this term enters the academic mainstream, I would describe the concept in wikivoice as "stigma against detransition(ers)" and positions/policies or anti-detransition. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]