Talk:Detransition

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tg242 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Saharsolomon25.

RfC for Medref tag

Seeking fresh, outside, neutral opinions on the "Occurrence" section's sources, per the Medref tag, please. Previous discussion is at Talk:Detransition#Medref_tag. Please note this page is tagged "Controversial".

The Medref tag was added 2017 December 27, 15 months ago. At that time, the article overall had 16 sources, all from the news. The medical section referenced 5 of those news sources, 2 of which referred to the same story.

Today, the article has 61 sources: 5 from books, 13 from medical journals, 32 of which are from news, and 11 from online sources. The medical section references 26 of those sources: 2 from books, 11 from journals, 15 from news, 1 from general online. Of the 11 journal sources, 2 of them reference the other 9.

Regarding this expansion of quantity and quality of sources, is the Medref tag still needed?

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's good that there's been a big increase in the use of MEDRS-compliant references, but the 32 news citations suggests maybe that the tag is still appropriate. We need to be moving to a point where there are almost no non-MEDRS-compliant references for medical claims. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The majority of news sources support content outside the medical section, to cover the social and legal aspects of detransition, which don't require MedRS. News sources within the medical section only support the journal sources as secondary sources. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

News sources for social and legal issues are fine. In terms of medical content, WP:MEDRS discourages us from using any news sources. If they're just repeating what MEDRS-compliant sources say, they can be deleted from there. Bondegezou (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not mean that all medical sources are okay. It clearly discourages WP:Primary sources. It also goes over quality matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Staszek Lem's uneducated opinion

This is a malformed RFC. You need to ask a specific question. The talk section you link is a chaotic discussion of several things. RFC usually asks for uninvolved editors like me who have no idea what was going on with the article. You have to brief them, otherwise sorry, tl;dr.

Now, specific comments:

First, The section has LOTS of references, but at the moment I looked it I get a strong whiff of original research, namely WP:SYNTH. This is exactly how SYNTH texts look like: a reference per word: have been few in number,[8] of disputed quality,[9] and politically controversial.[10]).

Second, how many of the medical refs are primary and how many secondary sources? To figure it out, this is your job, not commenters'.

In other words, if I were you, the RFC request must be something like this: Of 100 footnotes, 30 refer to news, 20 to primary, and 50 to secondary sources. However the 50 2ndary ones refer to only 5 the same authiors. Do you think the Medref tag is still required? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I opened the RfC; I wanted to avoid leading the question on this controversial topic. I've reworded above per your feedback. On perceived synth of quoted sentence: A and B are not cited to claim an uncited C; A, B, and C are cited, and A + B ≠ C. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• As commonly happens, @Staszek Lem: makes good points and I concur. However, it seems to me that this entire issue is not one that needs urgent resolution, and the very fact that we are agonising over it suggests that we are in reasonable doubt, which in turn means that we should leave the tag for another year or two (when possibly we might have more instances and publications as a basis for something more like a definitive basis for a decision?) As things stand, I may be prejudiced, but I don't think that any reader of the current version with its cautionary tag should be in no doubt that the text is tentative, but helpfully intended, and serves as a basis for further reading if desired. JonRichfield (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. The very fact that we are agonising could indicate bias over a politically controversial topic, rather than reasonable doubt. It's unclear what specific changes are needed to address the tag, other than the repeated more. The quantity and quality of content and sources here are comparable to those of Transgender#Healthcare and Transitioning_(transgender), which are free of complaint. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Individual Accounts

Hi all. We have a lot of individual accounts at this point, and I worry things could get cluttered. I thought I'd check in about notability, and defer to group consensus. Thoughts on comedian Will Franken's detransition? Worth adding? https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/30/comedian-who-came-out-as-transgender-reverts-back-to-a-man/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-i-began-living-as-a-woman-then-decided-to-transition-back-a6788051.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaitaliana (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The section's length is still in fine proportion to the other sections. There may come a day when it should break into a separate article, but not yet. Regarding Will Franken, I remember when this comedian's story broke (here it is also on Link TV). It generated interesting conversations at the time (in reliable and unreliable sources, positive and negative). I think it's notable enough for addition. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The list is growing and is near the point of becoming a random collection. If it gets any larger, it should follow the same rule as for other lists on Wikipedia: if people are notable enough to have an article, list them. If not, don't. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If someone is featured in one article in one RS, e.g. Anthony and Robinson, then that does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. We need to see an individual be covered by multiple RS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could begin to reword the section as prose that focuses more on shared social themes and experiences, and to be less like a list of persons. A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarah comes across to me as a less serious case and perhaps something of a publicity thing. If mentioned at all, evidence of the publicity aspect should be included, but it seems to me like a blip on the screen of the larger issue, in spite of the coverage it generated at the time. Jzsj (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and while Jonathunder's suggestion of paring the list to people who have articles would bring it in line with similar articles I can think of (e.g., the list in Trans woman is kept to only ones who have articles), I was hesitant, because it'd also remove much of the section's contents. However, the more I think about it...are there other articles where we give paragraphs to multiple non-notable i.e. non-article-having people's individual experiences of the topic? African Americans doesn't seem to contain accounts by individual AAs of what it's like to be African American, Trans woman doesn't seem to contain a section of accounts of (non-notable or, to much extent, even notable) trans women's experiences of transitioning and being trans, Sex reassignment surgery doesn't seem to contain individual accounts of people who've had SRS. The closest I can find is Ex-gay, which has blurbs on individuals, but apparently only ones who meet WP:GNG i.e. have their own articles, which is back to Jonathunder's point. I'd say, remove anyone who's only attested in one RS, per Bondegezou, but whether to include other people who may not have articles but are covered in enough RS to suggest they have some importance (e.g. possibly Walt Heyer, who I ran into mentions of while looking up something else related to this article the other day), I'm not sure.
The suggestion above to refocus on (or even just, add content on) commonalities would be good to the extent that there are RS pointing things out as being commonalities or being generally the case—we should avoid just looking at a number of accounts and saying "well, several/most/all of these accounts have feature X, so...", because that's liable to run into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. (One possible commonality I saw suggested in the sources I was looking through yesterday is that people who detransition tend to be at earlier stages of transition, it being very rare among people who've had surgery. Something else to look into would be whether any RS report on it being more common among one sex/gender or another.) -sche (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with that.

If there are particularly famous cases, I think they can warrant inclusion, but those should only be exceptional cases. For example, Christiane Völling gets explicitly mentioned at Sex_reassignment_therapy#Consent_and_the_treatment_of_intersex_people for a specific reason as a first. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I agree that the individual cases of detransition are numerous enough that not all of them should be included (unlike, say, spontaneous human combustion, where the small handful of possible cases are all mentioned).

I've been a bit reluctant to open this potential can of worms, but how about drafting another section called something like "associated activism", to explain the viewpoints of detransitioners publicly known for their advocacy like Callahan, Heyer, and possibly Anthony, as well as other people who've written extensively about detransitioning from various perspectives and received secondary-source coverage like Debra W. Soh, Ryan T. Anderson (the anti-gay marriage public intellectual guy—I'm very surprised he doesn't have an article), Julia Serano, and Sheila Jeffreys? The "What is a Woman" New Yorker article has some background information as well about the views of radical feminists and transfeminists. Cheers, gnu57 10:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Never mind, I've realised this is unnecessary and overall a bad idea. gnu57 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If individuals are of particular note, they should have their own articles. They could be mentioned briefly here, perhaps in an annotated See Also section. We have some text discussing activism around detransitioning: we could include notable people within that...? Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mitchell and Anthony stories were removed. I can see Mitchell as less notable, being reported by only two sources in a single month. Anthony has been covered in several sources over multiple years, so I re-added him with further refs. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this section remains the largest in the article. That seems wrong to me. Are all of these examples necessary? Bondegezou (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made a bold move: removed Robinson and Belovitch content (since their stories are more isolated in time), moved the sources that focused only on them to Further reading (they're good stories), and refocused remaining content on the more notable persons (with less "this magazine on that date" language). Hope this addresses the concerns without offending fans of the content. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think these new accounts could use some work. Specifically, I think it would be helpful to say *why* the blogs that they run are particularly notable, since I can't think of many other articles that list bloggers on the topic. Regarding the Lepovic section, As his views became less essentialist sounds like editorializing to me. The articles I read don't mention essentialism or explain what it is. (?) I don't propose removing them entirely, but they certainly could be edited down. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓

Revised. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Pride before the fall

off-topic discussion
Wiki loves Pride. WP:WLP Pride before the fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.197.179 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Hi, I noticed this article has a neutrality tag on it, dated March 2019. I've reviewed the article and I do not see any POV problems at this time. Are there any current POV concerns? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Mooeena added the tag in March 2019 (diff) and started a discussion in the talk page: Talk:Detransition/Archive 1#NPOV. Some things in the article have changed since March. One of the challenged statements is still there: The number of detransitioners is unknown but growing.. Maybe Mooeena or someone else can elaborate on current major NPOV issues, if any. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that, while the unknown but growing sentence has a lot of sources, it clearly both contradicts and is encompassed by the earlier Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly, with notable differences in terminology and methodology - ie. it looks like what we're doing is first saying that it varies greatly, then selectively citing people who say it's increasing. Also, the citations, on close examination, are mostly not very good - one person (or a few) saying they've seen more people is anecdotal evidence; preliminary findings shouldn't be reported as fact; Singal is a WP:BIASed source whose opinions on this topic cannot be cited on this subject without in-line attribution (and who carefully hedges with "appeared to be"); and the last one says more youtube videoes are appearing, not detransitioners. At the very least several of those cites have to go, since they don't support the point being made. EDIT: By my reading only one study there seems to support the idea that there is solid, reliable evidence behind there being an increase rather than vague anecdotes, opinions, or preliminary findings. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Aquillion has it spot on. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I also agree with Aquillion's assessment. It seems like the earlier sentence ("...vary greatly...") says what the RS actually support saying. -sche (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a classic "phenomenon vs. term" political debate. This biased article reifies a transphobic ideology akin to the ex-gay movement. I propose adding a few sources to improve neutrality, starting with this one:

• Robinson CM, Spivey SE (2019). Ungodly Genders: Deconstructing Ex-Gay Movement Discourses of “Transgenderism” in the US. Social Sciences doi:10.3390/socsci8060191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokestress (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sam Hope 2019 book

Jessica Kingsley Publishers came out with a book this year that nicely summarizes the bias underpinning this entire article. I propose we include this quotation:

Detransition is held up as the bogeyman, is held against trans people. Our transitions must be sure, and certain, and final, otherwise they are not legitimate. But of course, real life is much messier. As a therapist, a big part of my job is to be able to stay with client's uncertainty and hold quite a posing desires and needs.

Trans people detransition. And retransition. And alter trajectory. And change their names and pronouns more than once. All this is entirely valid. We can know that transition benefits the people who undertake it, but we can never know if transition is right for us, or the person in front of us. We cannot cure someone of being trans, but what they do about being trans is up to them. However, society will have a heavy bias towards 'gender transition is bad,' so we should probably worry less about a trans person being unduly influenced to not transition.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice towards transition perhaps because there are still underlying social attitudes that it is never the right choice. The extent to which trans people are subject to gatekeeping, having their decisions questioned, or having barriers placed in their way, is quite extreme.

Source: Hope, Sam (2019). Person-Centred Counselling for Trans and Gender Diverse People: A Practical Guide Jessica Kingsley Publishers ISBN 9781784509378 Jokestress (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of another article that includes such a long quotation (other than articles about documents, which quote those documents). If the source is "due", we could probably condense/summarize it in less than three paragraphs... -sche (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree a summary would be preferable. Just including the full comment on Talk as it nicely outlines the issues. The key phrase in my opinion is "a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice." Jokestress (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion as it does outline the whole issue well, to me a lot of the quotation is highly relevant...in clumsey cut down fashion

Our transitions must be sure, and certain, and final, otherwise they are not legitimate. But of course, real life is much messier. ..... Trans people detransition. And retransition. And alter trajectory. And change their names and pronouns more than once .... We can know that transition benefits the people who undertake it, but we can never :::know if transition is right for us, or the person in front of us. ...We cannot cure someone of being trans ...However... society will have a heavy bias towards 'gender transition is bad .... Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionate level of concern around trans people making the wrong choice towards transition perhaps because there :::are still underlying social attitudes that it is never the right choice. The extent to which trans people are subject to gatekeeping, having their decisions questioned, or having barriers placed in their way, is quite extreme. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Amber Roberts 2015 Vice article

Here's another nice secondary source with some first-hand reports and expert commentary to counter the pervasive bias in this article:

This may explain why it's more common for someone who has originally transitioned from male to female to want to detransition; the eight most common examples of those who have detransitioned are all male to female to male.

I only came across eight people in the world online who have actually gone through with it. "The numbers are so incredibly low," Dr. Bowers told me. "If anything, it reinforces the validity of gender transition in the first place."

Roberts, Amber (November 17, 2015). Dispelling the Myths About Trans People 'Detransitioning.' Vice