From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


A145GI15I95 and others, detransitioning is a medical topic. Because of this, the article should be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, except for society and culture/history matters. An aspect of WP:MEDRS means avoiding WP:Primary sources. That is why this edit by -sche, which included an edit summary that stated "this is sourced to a primary source," is a good edit. A145GI15I95, I notice that you also need to stop WP:Edit warring, which is policy. See WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, please don't call out one party solely. I don't object to your changes cited above. Thank you for explaining further the reasoning for the lead tag. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It indeed takes two. But you are not the experienced editor. When an editor, especially an experienced editor, reverts you with a clear explanation about why are wrong, do not edit war. At first glance, it looked like you were also edit warring with Mathglot. So I focused on you. When it's one editor edit warring with two, that one editor will usually be the one who receives the WP:Block, especially if they are the newbie or appear to be a newbie. The article might also, or alternatively, be WP:Page protected. I also saw you edit warring here. So to summarize, you came across as the disruptive editor to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
On the other linked page (Genderism), I was accused of changing a link, when I was only removing a repeated word. I asked for conversation, and I was ignored. I've received a poor first impression of -sche, to be engaged in edit wars and refusal to dialog in one day. I'm requesting good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at the edit history of Genderism (disambiguation) can plainly see you did remove the link to Genderism, which is the main article the disambiguation page formerly linked to, but which you insisted should be replaced with a link to only Gender binary, which is currently a separate article, though you have proposed merging them. -sche (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your stepping in, Flyer. I do share blame here, as I should have moved to the talk page after the first revert and solicited more input, instead of participating in the back-and-forth. There's no rush, and I am confident that through discussion here, we should be able to reach consensus on how to change the article, and failing that the stable version can always be restored.
As to MEDRS... it is a double-edged sword and can cut out some useful content as well as bad content—as I think you have noted before on other articles, Flyer—but the guideline exists for an important reason, and yes, should be followed.
-sche (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote in the changelog, "Remove unneeded repetition of disambig title. Also: Disagree with logic of previous edit, would prefer discussion on Talk page, but willing to accept link to either of two duplicate articles." It seems there's greater interest in being right than in having good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
(This is clear to anyone who looks at the edit history, but) diff from before your first edit to that page, where the first link is to [[Genderism]], vs diff from your (latest) edit, where the body text (as opposed to the RM tag which would be removed when the RM is closed) no longer links to [[Genderism]], even though that article is the obvious main topic for a disambiguation page titled [[Genderism (disambiguation)]] to contain a link to. QED. -sche (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
We are exceedingly off-topic here. I attempted to discuss your revisions. I surrendered and attempted merely to remove a repeated word. Every click I attempted was interrupted by your immediately unclick. What is your purpose please in continuing this tangent? I repeat, please show good faith. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

To bring this section back to topic, if you mean detransition involves medical topics, I agree. Thanks for the meta link. A145GI15I95 (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources have now been removed, except for those with accompanying secondary sources. Further secondary sources have also been added. Would this qualify for removal of the medref tag, or what more specifically would be desired, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: More on sourcing, such as WP:MEDPOP, is stated in the #Other primary OR non-medical sources section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've found a literature review of desistance studies in a journal which I believe is a secondary source that complies with WP:MEDRS.[1] I'm putting forward this review as a reliable source on childhood desistance studies and criticism thereof. Mooeena💌✒️ 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Detransition is not rare.[edit]

Citations show little to no research has been done on how frequent detransition is,[1][2] and that existing research is tangential and of debatable quality.[3][4][5] Surgical detransition-related procedures are "rare" (0–5%). Psychological/social/legal/hormonal detransition is "not uncommon" (55–95%).[6][7][8][9] There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding detransition's overall frequency. Please stop adding the claim that transition is "rare", especially to the lead paragraph. The fixation on painting the detrans phenomenon and community as "rare" (or until just recently throughout the world's media as "a myth" that "never happens") is unfounded and detransphobic. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References for Detransition is not rare     ( Click [show] to enable clickable references above )


  1. ^ "Bath Spa University 'blocks transgender research'". BBC. 25 September 2017. Retrieved 1 November 2017. [N]o research had been done into the subject.
  2. ^ Danker, Sara, MD; Narayan, Sasha K., BA; Bluebond-Langner, Rachel, MD; Schechter, Loren S., MD, FACS; Berli, Jens U., MD (August 2018). "A Survey Study of Surgeons' Experience with Regret and/or Reversal of Gender-Confirmation Surgeries". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open. 6: 189 – via Wolters Kluwer. There is a paucity of literature.
  3. ^ Marchiano, Lisa (6 Oct 2017). "Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics". Psychological Perspectives: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. Retrieved 2 February 2019. The research on outcomes post-transition is mixed at best.
  4. ^ Graham, Julie. "Detransition, Retransition: What Providers Need to Know" (PDF). Fenway Health. Retrieved 29 January 2019. Intentional misinformation or using data incorrectly… Low quality statistics… Definitions for regret vary…
  5. ^ Singal, Jesse. "When Children Say They're Trans". The Atlantic. Retrieved 30 January 2019. No one knows how common detransitioning is. A frequently cited statistic…doesn’t paint a complete picture. It comes from a study…that examined only those people who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery and legally changed their gender, then applied to change their gender back—a standard that…would have excluded her and most of the detransitioners she knows.
  6. ^ Clark-Flory, Tracy (15 June 2015). "Detransitioning: Going From Male To Female To Male Again". Vocativ. Retrieved 15 February 2019. Detransitioning after surgical interventions…is exceedingly rare. Research has often put the percentage of regret between 1 and 2%. … Detransitioning is actually far more common in the stages before surgery, when people are still exploring their options. 'There are people who take hormones and then decide to go off hormones,' says Randi Ettner, a therapist who has served on the board of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. 'That is not uncommon.'
  7. ^ Marchiano, Lisa (6 Oct 2017). "Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics". Psychological Perspectives: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. Retrieved 15 February 2019. There is a wealth of replicated research that tells us that 80–95% of children who experience a cross-sex identification in childhood will eventually desist and come to identify with their natal sex as adults.
  8. ^ Herzog, Katie (28 June 2017). "The Detransitioners: They Were Transgender, Until They Weren't". The Stranger. Retrieved 15 February 2019. A 50-year study out of Sweden found that only 2.2 percent of people who medically transitioned later experienced 'transition regret'. … There have, however, been almost a dozen studies looking at the rate of desistance among trans-identified kids [which] James Cantor summarized [as] '[V]ery few trans kids…transition by the time they are adults'. The exact rate of desistance varied by study, but overall they concluded that about 80%…identified as their sex at birth. … [T]he most recent study…found that two-thirds ultimately identified as the gender they were assigned at birth.
  9. ^ Graham, Julie. "Detransition, Retransition: What Providers Need to Know" (PDF). Fenway Health. Retrieved 15 February 2019. Definitions for regret vary, when they do they study, how long after surgery, etc. … Gender dysphoria is rare (small n). Detransitioning is rare. … 2.2% applications for reversal of legal gender status … 80% satisfied
Of Course it is very rare. How many cases of detransition are there against the numbers people who have transitioned and who do not to go back? The evidence shows that the numbers who detransition is a very small number compared to the overall numbers of trans folks, considering we know that the numbers who had surgeries in the USA alone last year were 3,256 alone, plus the larger numbers of trans folks transition globally including India, Thailand and Europe.
And Where does Psychological/social/legal/hormonal detransition is "not uncommon" (55–95%) figure come from? 55-95% of what or who? ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not claiming detransition is common. My point is we can't claim it to be rare. I've added citations to my statements above. Again, there's evidence showing rareness and evidence showing commonness, evidence varies in definitions and focus, evidence on the whole is lacking, attempts to gather new evidence are politically blocked, and professionals admit there's no consensus. To claim rareness in this article, especially in the lead, is inappropriate and offensive. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: Consolidated refs closer to their appearance with {{Reflist-talk}} and collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Individuals who are transgender are rare. (Best estimate: 0.6%, by Williams Institute; reference upon request.) Not all transgender individuals undergo transition; those who do are some unknown fraction, larger or smaller, of transgender people. People who detransition are some fraction of people who transition. All indications are, that that fraction is small to very small. We do need sources to substantiate that, and so far data seems hard to come by, but as time goes on the situation will no doubt crystallize.
There's another problem with this that stems from a completely different issue here, which is the ambiguity of a statement like, "detransition is rare", or, conversely, "detransition is not rare". Basically, "rare with respect to what?" The ambiguity arises because it's talking about a subset (S2) of a subset (S1) of a population (P), and you don't know if "rare" means "S2 is rare in S1", or "S2 is rare in P". You see this come up a lot when talking about studies with classes expressed in percentages, each broken down into hierarchical subgroups, also expressed in percentages. Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead section (opening paragraph)[edit]

In a recent change, this sentence (the second of two) was removed from the article's lead: Detransition is an emerging and politically controversial phenomenon.

The stated reason was: This sentence appears to be fluff. Yes its a recent phenomenon, as medical science has advanced in sex reassignment surgery ~ so a relatively very small number of people have regretted their decisions , but the cases are rare (55–95% of what exactly, 7 out of how many etc etc etc) and connected to no actual notable political controversy.)

Oxford defines "fluff" as "writing perceived as trivial or superficial". I disagree with that characterization. Sources for this article note that:

  • Detransition is a newly recognized phenomenon;
  • Detransition is lacking in a sufficient amount of direct, formal study;
  • Existing studies differ in terms and conclusions;
  • New attempts to study the topic are perceived factionally with concern for professional reputations against special-interest groups;
  • Detransitioners feel ignored, shamed, and used.

These sentiments are cited and outlined in the article's content, and they were meant to be summarized in the lead's second sentence by the words "emerging" and "politically controversial".

The change log's note also draws focus to surgical detransition. Medical status (hormones and surgery) isn't a defining factor of gender transition, nor is it of detransition. Most transitioners and most detransitioners don't get surgery, whether due to personal choices or access.

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH advises the lead to "identify the topic with a neutral point of view" (as is done with the first sentence of this article) and to "establish the context in which the topic is being considered" (as was done or attempted in the second, removed sentence).

I'm not tied to the wording of the removed sentence, but I disagree with its removal. It offers a minimum of neutral, supported context. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The removed sentence was not exactly neutral, to say something was politically controversial when in fact it has not yet reached any level of what might be described as a notable political controversy, is not neutral. Also its not emerging ... long before the word 'detransition' existed and the recent increase in the numbers transitioning the has always been a unknown number who have decided to return to their originally assigned gender identity, as long as it has been safe and possible to express gender variance. Considering its neither emerging nor politically controversial the sentence did seem unwarrented. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
1) Oxford defines "controversial" as "likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement", and "politically" as "in a way that relates to the political ideas or beliefs of a person or group". Detransition is indeed controversial, and for political reasons. How else would we describe this pattern?
* Interviews of detransitioners in mainstream and alternative media are accused of bias differing factions.
* Interpretations of existing studies are similarly called into question.
* Gender psychologist James Caspian was prevented from continuing his study of detransition due to an anticipated social-media backlash against his university.
* Gender psychologist Kenneth Zucker was fired from his high-ranking position for speaking in favor of detransition.
* Other professionals fear to discuss the topic for its effect on their reputations.
* Detransitioners fear to "come out" publicly for their experiences of harassment.
2) Oxford defines "emerging" as "becoming apparent". Detransition has indeed, and only in the last few years, begun to be noticed by healthcare professionals and the media. How else should we describe this pattern?
* Google Trends shows barely any mention prior to a decade ago, and a notable increase less than three years ago.
* Numerous sources for this article note that the number of persons who pursue detransition is increasing.
* Multiple sources report increased interest from healthcare professionals.
* Detransitioners have just in recent years begun tweeting, blogging, vlogging, and forming support groups.
These two points (controversy and newness) I see as best summarizing the five bulletpoints in my first post under this section of talk. Is there a better way to summarize this context? A145GI15I95 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, but when you point to numerous or multiple sources, does this take into account that 21 references used in this article are from just 7 sources, but are multiplied by using different quotes in those citations. I am not sure if evidence for something that yes certainly does exists is being a little bit exaggerated. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've not counted the sources (no minimum is specified in the docs). Sources are finite because the topic is emerging (newly/increasingly recognized by media and professionals) and politically controversial (subject to disagreement due to differing policy-related beliefs). A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


The current state of the article does not meet WP:NPOV. Hundreds of edits have been made in the last month by one editor who has made few or no other edits outside this topic that seem to argue that "detransitioner" is a marginalized gender identity along the lines of transgender or non-binary. The biggest sins: appending half a dozen citations each to the statements "0 to 95%" of transgender people detransition and "The number of detransitioners is unknown but growing" bias the article towards the idea that detransition is a common occurrence. Second, Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal are not reliable sources on transgender issues, and no number of references to opinion articles, tumblr blogs, and individual accounts can make up for inconclusive results from independent studies. In numerous places, the article also conflates negative emotions related to being discriminated against as transgender with "trans regret." This article either needs a complete rewrite or a reversion to the version from the beginning of last month with the addition of some of the research and commentary from this article. Mooeena💌✒️ 20:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no sock (strange way to make acquaintance).
Detransitioners (no need for scare quotes) have called for help from LGBT/trans advocates and professionals, and have been ignored for political reasons. In light of this disenfranchisement, detrans folk have blogged, vlogged, and formed discussion groups online and in-person to support themselves. This is only recently being reported by mainstream news. Detransitioners are definitively a "marginalized" group.
Citations and quotations are provided from reliable sources to back all claims. No content from Tumblr is linked here (Straw man).
Detransition is not a "transgender issue". It is debated (to no consensus yet) among detransitioners and professionals whether detrans folk are still trans, and/or whether detrans were ever trans. It is found that most detransitioners are homosexual or bi, while many are hetero. Calling detransition a trans issue is like calling trans a gay issue. They're related but different.
I don't see where transphobia is conflated with regret. I've attempted to summarize and cite source material as accurately and fairly as possible. Thanks.
A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi A145GI15I95, I am in no way accusing you of being a sock. I simply noted to others viewing this talk page that the majority of your contributions to this wiki are edits on this article, and as such you may have strong feelings on the topic. I came on a little clinically, and I apologize for that. Ultimately, the issue here is a matter of too much, too soon. As you've noted, there is no rush to complete Wikipedia. Later, when there are firm, verifiable, scientific studies and a significant number of people who identify as "detransitioners," then this article can be expanded. Until then, you're moving in a little fast. I can empathize with your urge to bring justice to a group you feel have been ignored. However, just because you care for these people doesn't mean that their internal struggle is notable to a significant degree. There are many small but growing social groups that do not have Wikipedia articles. This is not to minimize their experiences, but Wikipedia has a standard of notability for social groups.
I am gay and am close to many queer and trans people of all sorts. I am well aware of intersectionality between transgender and LGB experiences. Some transgender people are gay and some are straight, just as some detransitioners are gay and some straight. However, detransition by its very nature is intrinsically linked to transition. Saying they're unrelated is just not accurate.
This brings me to my next point. The reason that this page pinged my NPOV-senses was because the sources it draws from (and glosses over) take a particular stance. This article mentions "anti-detrans" activists as an oppositional force to detransitioners, but none are directly quoted, as opposed to an entire section of individual accounts of specific people who have detransitioned. The inclusion of these accounts and not others leads the reader to draw certain conclusions. The "expert" cited in the Australian 60 Minutes section says this about having a potentially transgender child: "The good news is statistically, they’re going to grow out of it. Don’t mess them up." There are no accounts from people who ceased transition treatment temporarily or because of transphobic societal pressures, as in this article published in series with the oft-cited Jesse Singal article; only those who were pressured by others to transition and later realized they weren't trans. There is also no discussion of people who go through short or partial transitions by choice or because they were satisfied with the results,[2] only those who felt regret with their bodies. You have stated in the article and this talk page that people oppose detransition for political reasons. What political reasons? Editors should take care to not hold LGBT people/activists as a whole as strawmen villains. (Especially re: ignoring and disenfranchising a group of people asking for help. That's a strong accusation.) These are important things to consider in writing a balanced and fair article.
I'd like to give you time to take this into account, but I plan to move in and edit this article to fit a better standard of neutrality using these and other concerns other users have brought up on this page. (I'm also going to have another pass at neatening up the references using the advice given by our good friends from WP:Citing sources.) Please assume good faith before reverting these future edits. Mooeena💌✒️ 04:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying you don't wish to infer sockness. I'm accustomed to a more professional version control UI. I edit here in spurts; if I could squash commits at the end of a run, I would. Otherwise, I apologize if this presents a wall of commits; most are small. I could link to contribution histories of other editors here that show actual bias. I came here seeing an ask for more sources; I've since provided many. I'm unsure how to respond to concern for "too much, too soon…a little fast" with complaint for why haven't this and that and another item yet been added.
I appreciate that some of us might know a hundred detrans folk, and some of us might not be within a hundred miles of one. Please remember not all detrans folk are "gay…queer and trans", queer cultures vary greatly by geography and generation, and knowing or being members of one group isn't equivalent to knowing or being members of a related group.
And I didn't say trans and detrans are "unrelated", I said exactly the opposite. I said detrans isn't a trans issue, because detrans isn't a kind of trans. This article never once mentions the word "anti-detrans". I don't know why you write "expert" in quotes (scare quotes?), as neither I nor the article nor the source use that word. If you mean John Whitehall, he's the chair of pediatrics at the University of Western Sydney, which would be an expert in children's healthcare.
You ask why detransition is "politically" opposed. The article quotes Caspian's censorship for political correctness, and the citations quote the University's concern for social media backlash. It mentions the competing interests of rad fems and Christian conservative. I could look again at summarizing these and other positions further. But it's challenging to please each editor (again, too much or not enough?), and we're all volunteers.
You express concern that media haven't given enough attention to persons who detransition for transphobia. I don't believe it's our place to re-write what the media covers. And most persons simply don't detransition for transphobia, but more often for the reasons summed in this article (dissatisfaction with transition or evolved perspectives).
I'd never heard of the Kanner/Atlantic article you link. Likely because the Singal/Atlantic article gained far more attention (its Google search results return two and half times as many, 2,440 versus 971). I'll look at whatever you suggest, but I'm wary of seeking sources to fit a perspective (cart before horse).
I want to trust your intentions, but I'm wary. You write of neutrality, but you began with denial of the detrans community's existence. Your two logs above appear to show expectations for a specific narrative, and your hyperbole doesn't help. I've sought to contribute fairly from evidence, and to avoid pitting trans against detrans in the article. Please don't turn this article toward another "detransition never happens, detransitioners don't exist, detrans lives don't matter" hit piece. There's nothing wrong with detransition. Thank you.
A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions re citation practice[edit]

Following a question from @Mooeena at WT:Citing sources#Duplicate sources with quotes regarding some aspects of citation I have recommended an approach that you all might find more convenient. Key points: (a) each source has exactly one full citation; (b) list the source full citations in a dedicated section; (c) use short-cites, implemented by means of {{harv}} templates that "automagically" link to the full citations, for in-line citations.

Here I would like to offer some additional suggestions. Note that including a full citation with all of its bibliographic details in the wikitext makes the text harder to read; do consider collecting them into a dedicated section, such as "Sources". Also: vertical format makes it much easier to read and check the full citations, and likewise for spaces preceding each vertical bar. And while it is fairly small thing, I find that putting the url at the end of the template (not the start!) makes the whole template more readable.

The use of the |author= parameter for "first and last names" (such as "|author=Herzog, Katie" and "|author=Weale, Sally"} isn't a good idea, and really should be split into "first=" and "last=".

I see several instances of what appear to be journal articles cited with {cite web}. A full citation should be to the journal, not to the website where a copy of the article is found. Use of {{cite journal}}, or {{citation}} with |journal=, is preferable. Similarly, The Atlantic is a magazine, and should be cited as such, not merely as a publisher.

More points might be considered but, well, it's hard to read horizontally formated full citations in the wikitext! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for advising how to combine sources while maintaining separate quotations. I can look into how I might help convert these. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. Ping me if you have any questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems @Genericusername57 exquisitely devoured this task of folding citations before I could begin. Thank you, job well done. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Not quite how I would do it (I think horizontal format is much better), but nice work nonetheless. Something I would point out: an explicit "et al." (and the associated "ref=CITEREF...") is neither necessary nor desirable with Harv templates. I have taken the liberty of converting one instance ("Steensma") with this edit to illustrate how specification of four authors is automatically displayed as "Steens, et al., 2013". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Two more things I should mention. (1) {Harv}, and {cite} in cs2 mode, do not automatically add a terminal period; suitable punctuation needs to be added. (2) The {{refn}} template is a hack for "bundling" notes ("references") where people are under the misapprehension that each in-line citation must be packaged in its own <ref> tags inside of another note. This is not needed, and it is less confusing (fewer braces to track!) to use explicit <ref> tags. Illustrative edit here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Detransition vs transgender desistance[edit]

Today, I removed a sentence from the article which read, "A 2008 study of gender dysphoric adolescents found 61% to desist from their transgender identity before reaching adulthood, and a 2013 study found 63% to desist," because desisting is not detransitioning, which is the cessation and reversal of a gender transition, and the sentence in particular doesn't even mention the subjects of the study transitioned at all. The information was re-added by @A145GI15I95: with the assertion that the sources use the terms interchangeably. To support this, A145GI15I95 cited the following sources:

  • This article in The Stranger, which defines desistance as "trans kids [who] eventually identify as their sex at birth", without reference to transitioning
  • This article in The Atlantic, which specifically describes desistance as distinct from detransitioning
  • This source, in which the only use of the word "desistance", "desist", etc is simply to cite this article, which defines desistance as the resolution of children's gender dysphoria by the time they are adults, which also differentiates the two topics

In order to avoid an edit war, I have not yet removed the statements again, but to me it is clear that the conflation of the two topics is WP:SYNTH on A145GI15I95's part, not supported by the sources as they claim. I would like to assume good faith on A145GI15I95's part, but they have an apparent history of disruptive behavior on this article in particular. For example, CANVASSING in [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this Twitter thread]. --Equivamp - talk 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Note: After this was posted, A145GI15I95's Twitter account was made private in order to make the link to their canvassing inaccessible, but it consisted of attempts to sway the results of the NPOV/other discussions above. --Equivamp - talk 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC))
The subjects of those two studies identified as trans, then years later reverted to non-trans identities. Transition doesn't require medical/physical changes, nor does detransition. The terms "detransition", "desistance", and "retransition" are used interchangeably by most sources, with little consensus as to distinction. My actions have remained with the realm of appropriate behavior on your linked rule page. However, you are now in violation of Wikipedia's privacy rules, in this attempt to WP:DOX. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere did I make the assertion that (de)transition requires medical/physical changes. My point remains that no, the sources do not use them interchangeably, and the information currently cited in the article supporting that idea does not, in fact, do so.
I do not believe my link violates any policy about personally identifying information, as it lacks any. I misunderstood the breadth of the policy and now understand how it violated Wikipedia's policies. @A145GI15I95:, I apologize. --Equivamp - talk 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that conflating adolescent desistance and detransition in adults is WP:SYNTH. The lack of consensus as to a definition or distinction does not mean it's okay to go ahead and make that decision on here.

In addition, I have concerns about A145GI15I95's apparent off-wiki canvassing and the subsequent influx of new editors to this page. This is not the way consensus should be built on this wiki. Mooeena💌✒️ 02:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of being a sock, of committing "sins", of citing Tumblr blogs, and now of being a canvasser. You deny the detrans community exists. You complain of reliable sources that you simply dislike. You bully me on my user:talk page. Your bias in gender identity is admitted on your user page. Please stop. A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi A145GI15I95, if you believe that I am acting maliciously towards you, feel free to request a third-party dispute resolution or administrator assistance. Otherwise, let's keep this talk page on-topic. Equivamp noted that it appears you requested help on Twitter to strengthen your point on this page. That is known as canvassing. Mooeena💌✒️ 04:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"Let's keep this on topic", yet you keep bringing it back to hearsay and personal attacks. I already said I've done nothing outside the rules. An administrator already redacted the claim. Please stop. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The claim was not redacted, only the link which you expressed concern was "dox". The fact remains that you engaged in off-wiki ("stealth") canvassing right before a significant number of new editors began work on this page. --Equivamp - talk 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Equivamp: This page was also linked from the subreddit "GenderCritical" a few days ago [3], which has ~30k subscribers—I think that might explain the sudden explosion in page views and edits. I don't think A145GI15I95 should be blamed for the influx of new editors. I also don't think it's fair to characterise all the new editors as canvassed POV pushers—Pastaitaliana is new but has been making constructive additions. Cheers, gnu57 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation? Given that it seems like newspaper articles (and common parlance) uses the terms interchangeably, and perhaps do so with good reason [I agree with @A145GI15I95: that it seems logically to follow that if transition does *not* require medical intervention, detransition would not require it either], perhaps the title of the page should be "Detransition/Desistance". There is no page about desistance as far as I can tell, and it does seem from journal articles (like the study I referenced below) that it isn't only children who "desist" in gender dysphoria or in an alternative gender-identification. Then we could have a section on "Medical Detransition" as well, which will be useful as that research starts to come out (GIDES is evidently reorganizing so as to track detransitions better). Thoughts, crew? Figured if I was going to make this recommendation, I'd best demonstrate some evidence of it:

  • Early social transitioning of the gender nonconforming preschooler may be an option if child is persistent and insistent in the gender variance, such as stating that they are the other gender, and if the parents express a strong acceptance and desire for it. Since in this age group children are developmentally at early stages of gender differentiation, nonconformity among preschool-age children is less socially noted or ostracized. This may alleviate the need for actual social transitioning, for example, in preschool programs. These children may never present to a gender specialist or even as gender nonconforming to their pediatricians, and are often taken care of at the primary care level. Some suggest caution in social transitioning in this age group as the rate of desistance might be higher than in older children. Detransitioning at a later age can be quite difficult for the child and family." And: "There is also concern about children desisting in cross-gender identification after puberty and the impact of detransitioning if the child socially transitioned before"


"Desistance" is simply a polite/generic (less politically charged) word for "detransition". "Retransition" is almost a positive spin word (though adopted by some in the community). These words all mean the same thing: stopping IDing as trans. However that specifically manifests varies from person to person. Some keep their name, revert their name, or adopt a new name. Some keep pronouns, revert pronouns, take new pronouns. Some maintain dress, revert dress, or choose a new style of dress. Some continue cross-sex HRT, quit all HRT, or switch to same-sex HRT. Some never get surgery, some get surgery for the first time, some get new surgery in addition to surgeries from transition.
If someone IDs as trans, IDs as the opposite sex/gender, changes name, changes pronouns, changes style of clothes, takes hormones, gets surgery, or anything of those sorts, then they're trans. There are many competing perspectives and definitions, and there's no strict requirement that they do any minimum number of those things. And if they stop doing that(those) thing(s), then they've desisted from being trans, they've detransitioned or retransitioned. Detransition is the most common word within the community. How it manifests varies greatly based on histories and wishes.
Younger folk are less likely to've yet made many great physical changes, and they're more likely to detransition. This is noted and sourced in the article. But that doesn't mean youth who who detransition were never really trans or never really transitioned anymore than it means so for an adult.
This article has done a good job of walking the line of NPOV, stating facts without emotion, citing studies from both "sides". Though I still wish we'd stop fixating on statistics and declarations when we've so little data. The complaints here are from seemingly biased parties who apparently see detransition as a threat to trans rights. I believe treating detransition fairly should arouse no legitimate concern from any trans advocate or activist. A145GI15I95 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, "Detransition/Desistance" seems like a good fix, given that they're synonyms. I haven't come across the retransition term at all, so it may be jumping the gun to add that to the top line, but definitely if there's a source, it's worth mentioning in the article! I'm still new to wikipedia but it seems to me that there are ways of marking AKA on pages? Pastaitaliana (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (PDT)
Respectfully, I don't believe the article should be retitled as "Detransition/desistance", as "desistance" is a generic term for ceasing anything. It's also applied to ADHD, for example. Maybe "Detransition and gender-identity desistance", but I think that's unnecessarily wordy. The general term preferred by community members is simply "detransition". A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, well I don't have a strong preference either way. I do think that the research falls into two categories generally, those who have medically transitioned v. those who have socially/identity transitioned, and that it might be worthwhile to lump the research results into those two groups. I'm just thinking of ways to make the page a little clearer and more readable, because there's a long list of symptoms/causes, and maybe sorting would help with legibility. Thanks for listening!Pastaitaliana (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2019 (PDT)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss, and suggestions to improve legibility. Differentiating kinds of trans folk is considered transphobic, and differentiating kinds of detrans folk is similarly detransphobic. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
As noted above, the current citations that purport to show that the terms are used interchangeably, in fact contradict that claim, or at least do not support it. --Equivamp - talk 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I didn't do any more work on more evidence as it didn't seem like it was helpful to the discussion on this page. But it seems obvious to me that these terms are doing the same work, esp the last sentence: "There is also concern about children desisting in cross-gender identification after puberty and the impact of detransitioning if the child socially transitioned before". Desisting seems to be the internal manifestation of detransitioning. You desist in identification (internally) and that manifests (externally) as a detransition. This is of course not the same thing as getting an SRS reversal, which would be a sub-category of certain types of transitions. --Pastaitaliana (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2019 (PDT).
The two studies of younger detrans folk (Wallien and Steensma) use desist [from having a trans ID] as an antonym to persist [with having a trans ID]. Again, desistance is a polite/technical term. Detransition is the colloquial/umbrella term adopted by the detrans community. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"Persist with having a trans identity" is not the same thing as "transition", so I'm not seeing the argument made that to desist is the same as transition. The sources cited as using them interchangeably don't. There have been no sources provided to support that "desist" is a technical term with "detransition" being an intracommunity term for the same phenomenon. --Equivamp - talk 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
To persist trans ID is indeed to continue with transition, to continue being trans. Consider this sequence:
1) A person IDs as trans. They're now trans. Nothing further is required. They've begun transition. Transition may take further social, legal, and/or medical aspects over time.
2) Time passes, and this person still IDs as trans, they still are trans, their trans ID persists.
3) Later, this person desists from IDing as trans. They're now detrans. As in transition, nothing further is required. They've begun detransition. Detransition may take further social, legal and/or medical aspects over time.
The focus on removing studies of teenagers and young adults, who're least likely yet to've gotten surgery, who're the most likely age group to detransition, is an attempt to skew numbers back to "detransition never happens, detrans lives don't matter".
A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"Being transgender" is not the same as "transitioning". This is why Transgender and Transitioning (transgender) are able to be separate articles. To quote the Transitioning (transgender) article, "Transition must begin with a personal decision to transition, prompted by the feeling that one's gender identity does not match the sex that one was assigned at birth." Being transgender is the "feeling" described, and transitioning refers to actions taken. (Be they restricted only to the social sphere or not.) You're implying I have some agenda to "skew" numbers of people who detransition, when that is not the case, nor is it relevant to what the sources say "detransitioning" and "desisting" are. Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources say they are related but not interchangeable - including the sources you yourself have tried to use to support their conflation, as I showed above. --Equivamp - talk 20:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
No one said being trans is transition. Identifying as trans is a form of transition (known as self ID). You cite two Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources. I question your motive in removing these two studies because the web is full of blogs and tweets from activists attempting to discredit these studies. Please stop removing stable content without reaching consensus here first, thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the way the particular statement is sourced is that the studies in the inline citation are still in the article regardless of whether they are attached to that particular statement. In fact, checking the particular revision, it looks like they're still there. My issue is not with the inclusion of the sources, it is with misleadingly conveying that they support a claim which they actually contradict. If you can produce RS which support the conflation of the terms, I encourage you to do so, as ample time has passed with the misleadingly-cited information being presented as fact on this article to allow time for it. Again, I don't have an issue with the sources cited in and of themselves, and I didn't remove them from the article - they're still there. I'm not an activist at all. Are you? --Equivamp - talk 22:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I confused this discussion of a removed definition with another thread in which studies have been removed. Regarding definitions, I've added more medical sources and rewording accordingly. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries, things can get a bit hectic when trying to address multiple things at once, so I understand how that can happen. I'm glad that we could get through that confusion to work on it. I think @Moeena: brings up good points about where to go from here (below) but I think I'm happy with it for now. The article will continue to grow as continued media coverage and research is done on the topic. --Equivamp - talk 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe that Equivamp is in the right here. Not all (in fact, I'd wager it's quite few) of the children in the desistance study identify as detrans or belong to said online communities. The article should use the terminology used by experts, not a colloquial usage used by a specific online community. There are more gender non-conforming children than there are transgender children, and calling childhood desistance detransition conflates the two. I think there should be seperate sections on childhood desistance and adult cessation of HRT/surgery/legal changes etc, especially because combining the statistics on the two is so SYNTHy. (See Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly from 0 to 95%, with notable differences in terminology and methodology.) Desistance is much more common than detransition, but the current state of the article is essentially meaningless. Is the frequency of surgical detransition 95%? Is the rate of childhood desistance 1-2%? There's no way of knowing.
I certainly don't believe that seperating these two is going to send the message that detrans lives don't matter; that's a little hyperbolic. Reliably reporting on the research that has been done is going to cause no harm to the community of people who have detransitioned, nor is not doing so going to encourage people to join those online communities. If that worries you, it may be time to take a step back and cool down a little. Mooeena💌✒️ 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This section of talk is regarding the two youth studies (Wallien 2008 and Steensma 2013), which report persistance vs desistance of gender dysphoria and trans gender identity. Our article content summarizes their results succinctly and accurately. Desistance is a part of detransition, so their inclusion is relevant. The percentage range for all studies (in the introductory paragraph preceding the paragraph of studies) is immediately followed by the statement that frequency is greatest in the earliest stages. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was the Extended Clinical Assessment citation removed?[edit]

I gave another piece of medical evidence for the detransition/desistance statistics that seems to have been summarily removed, without being mentioned in the talk session.

I understand that there's some controversy regarding the distinction between the two terms, but there isn't a desistance page (and not all who desist are children). Given that detransition is in this page also defined as deciding not to identify as trans, regardless of one's desire to engage in further medical treatment, the study I posted is relevant.

Here is the link to the study: (And it's well worth reading if you're interested in understanding the motivations of adolescents who change in their identification.) Pastaitaliana (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Pastaitaliana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaitaliana (talkcontribs) 03:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Medref tag[edit]

Discussion regarding the Medref tag has been scattered in multiple locations. Many sources have been added since the tag appeared in January 2017 December. Is this concern still present? Thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In short, yes. As discussed above, the tag will likely remain until more secondary sources (literature reviews) on these primary source studies are published in reliable journals. This may take a long time, but that's okay, because there is no time limit for page templates. Mooeena💌✒️ 18:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The tag was added in 2017 December, 15 months ago (it was boldly removed and immediately re-added this last January, hence the date mistake). At that time (2017 December), the article had 16 sources, all from the news. Today, the article has 36 sources: 20 of which are from the news, 10 from medical journals, 5 from online sources, and 1 from a book. How long is enough? How many sources is enough? It seems this article might be held to an unreasonably and ever-higher standard for possible political motivations. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The medref tag's link was recently changed. I changed it back to this new section, in an effort to consolidate the scattered conversation. For convenience, here are links to previous conversations on this topic, in the order they were created:

A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a few questions about sources and formatting related to MEDRS:

  • Although the long-form refs at the bottom of the article are sorted by type (book, journal, news), the short cites obscure that information. What do you guys think of using custom harvids to reference the news sources by publisher (New York Times 2019) rather than by author (Journalist-lastname 2019)?
  • The bundled citation for occurrence (the one supporting the 0-95% range) quotes the 2.2% figure multiple times, but as far as I can tell, the various sources are all referencing the same Swedish study. I think we should (a) remove that duplication and (b) possibly sort the figures by whether they're measuring childhood desistance or adult surgical detransition.
  • The article's still a bit light on non-news sources. I've been looking through google books, but a lot of the possibilities look a bit sketchy. What do you think of these?
  • Cheers, gnu57 21:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, when you say "the long-form refs at the bottom of the article", I think you mean the items in "Sources" list. And when you say "the short cites", I think you mean the items in the "References" list. I believe the naming of references primarily by author is in accordance with Harvard conventions. May I ask the motivation to name refs by publication-and-then-author instead? Also to clarify, the higher numbers of detransitioners didn't all desist in childhood, they merely began IDing as trans in childhood. I've update our page content now with more specific ages of detransition. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your answer. I know that using the publisher name is non-standard Harvard formatting, but I thought it might be good to differentiate somehow between scholarly sources and news ones, e.g., by using surnames for academics (Jones 2018) and publishers for news (BBC 2019), since the name of the particular journalist is typically unimportant. It occurs to me now, though, that some of the news sources are opinion pieces, where who's writing does matter a lot—so the citations probably are better off as is.
Thank you also for clarifying that point in the occurrence section; I am not at all familiar with the subject, but it seemed to me that the childhood studies focussed on persistence/desistance of self-identification as transgender, as opposed to changes in gender presentation/sex characteristics.
Two more comments: (1) In my trawl through gbooks, I was surprised to encounter multiple sources saying detransition was common among elderly transitioned people entering nursing homes. Do you think this is relevant here? (2) Since the individual accounts section involves living people, I'm thinking of adding a BLP template to this page. Cheers, gnu57 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The adolescents and young adults in the two studies I know contained a mix of those who transitioned socially only and those who also transitioned medically to various degrees. I'm unaware of studies on elderly detransition, please include those if you can, thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to give a try for a few of the elderly examples, because I do think they're relevant. I've been adding information on other forms (ie, temporary etc.) of detransition bit by bit, because I think it's important that the page reflect the wide range of experiences. Feel free to comment out if you think it needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastaitaliana (talkcontribs) 23:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

'Wiki Loves Pride'[edit]

off-topic discussion

Pastaitaliana Thank you for your valuable contributions to the Detransition article.

Keep in mind:


BirrungPark (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BirrungPark, could you please clarify what you mean in your above statement? It sounds detransphobic to liken detransition with gay-conversion therapy, and to describe detransition as "undermining" a "foundational" LGBT+ "narrative". We're not here to pit trans against detrans (or anyone against anyone). Detrans folk exist and have social, legal, and medical needs regardless of (separate from) trans rights. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I said what I said.
BirrungPark (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Penner[edit]

Hello all,

I just commented out the addition of Mike Penner, because I thought it needed some discussion. While detransition is not solely a medical topic, the WikiProject Medicine manual of style, a higher standard than the general MoS, provides a sensible guideline for content and tone. In particular, the MEDMOS advice for mentioning notable cases or media portrayals is applicable here. I'm reluctant to mention Penner because, although he returned to his former gender self-identification, and lots of sources called his experience one of detransition, he didn't publicly self-identify that way.

I think that all the other individual accounts are fine to mention, since the people (a) publicly self-identify as detrans and (b) have received media coverage specifically for their detransition; I of course would be opposed to adding people based on speculation or tabloid coverage, or including fictional portrayals without strong secondary sources. Penner is a bit of an edge case, but I think that we should err on the side of caution on a potential BLP issue. Cheers, gnu57 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gnu, thanks for commenting! I'm not particular - I simply copied over the reference from the french language wiki on detransition. I guess here is why I think Penner might be a valuable case to add. First, he seems to be the first notable "detransition". Seeing how the discussion of such a new concept evolves over time can be important for understanding it. Second, he fits the definition of the topic in an "objective" sense - once ID'd as trans, then didn't. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that detransition as a term is both an identity and an objective medical term. We use detransition to talk about childhood desistance, adolescent and adult identification, and adult SRS reversal. It would make sense to me to have different names for these things, but I don't think that exists yet - it's still too new. Anyway, there are plenty of notable cases, so one more or less doesn't seem too important to me - I'll defer to group consensus :) Thanks again for opening up the chat! Pastaitaliana (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2019
I'd like to echo that the words detransition/detransitioner/detrans didn't exist or weren't at all well-known in 2008 (transgender/transition/trans were barely known to the general public then). I'm in favor of returning Penner's short bio, as it garnered noticeable media attention. And yes, I certainly would oppose any future introduction of tabloid speculations (such as with Caitlyn Jenner, for example). And I'm undecided on the recent introduction of fictional examples. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll restore the Penner bio. When I looked up news stories about him, I found the amount of armchair psychoanalysis and speculation about his motivations really offputting; but you guys are right that he is one of the first prominent cases, and the actual facts of his bio are well established. (It would be nice, though, to use a reference with more factual details and less speculation.) Thanks for your comments. Cheers, gnu57 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Definitely agree with you that that armchair psychoanalysis is often less than stellar (and sometimes really icky). The source linked in the French wiki was a sympathetic commentator, so I thought that it would probably be the best one? (Tbh I didn't actually look around for new sources -- I should actually read a little bit about wikis in different languages and the expected syncing there). I suppose it is good at least to see that the way these issues are discussed has changed so much over the past decade. Thanks Gnu! Pastaitaliana (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)PastaItaliana

Fictional characters[edit]

Should we add fictional characters such as Mr. Garrison? --Sharouser (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I went looking for secondary sources discussing that portrayal, and found only a passing mention in this slate article, which says Most famously, gay man Mr. Garrison, the kids’ teacher, went through a two-year stint as a trans woman only to de-transition back to malehood, and that entire storyline was played for laughs based on disrespectful stereotypes.—so I'd say no: not enough sourcing and too tenuously connected to real-life detransition. Cheers, gnu57 13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
A science-fiction character was also added, by the way (its removal is seen here). I'm undecided/neutral on the inclusion/removal of these two fictional characters. They're relevant, but I'm unsure how meaningful they are. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that neither of these two characters should be included. Neither of them are particularly relevent, and South Park is, well, South Park. Mooeena💌✒️ 02:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC for Medref tag[edit]

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