Talk:Detransition

Rewriting to focus on reviews

As it stands, the article relies on a lot of primary studies and opinion pieces. We should be doing citing reviews directly as much as possible, so I'm creating this section to collate them before starting to rewrite the article based on them. If I miss some, please add them! These were found by google scholar, searching "detransition" in abstracts and toggling for reviews only since 2016.

Caption text

Name	Type	Author/Year
Prevalence of detransition in persons seeking gender-affirming hormonal treatments: a systematic review	Systematic	Feigerlova 2024
Prevalence of Regret in Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Systematic Review	Systematic	Thomas et al 2024
Continuation of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Systematic Review	Systematic	Gupta et al 2024
Gender detransition: A critical review of the literature	Critical	Expósito-Campos 2023
Dynamic Gender Identities and Expressions: Detransition and Affirming Non-linear Gender Pathways Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth	?	Dolatina et al 2023
Do gender assessments prevent regret in transgender healthcare? A narrative review.	Narrative	Ashley & McKinnon 2024
Defining Desistance: Exploring Desistance in Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth Through Systematic Literature Review	Systematic	Karrington 2022

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz Michael Irwig's piece is clearly marked as a commentary, which WP:MEDRS notes aren't peer-reviewed. It's a primary source of his opinion. The text you-readded cited to him was According to Michael Irwig, the prevalence of detransition may be underestimated. One study of 100 detransitioners found that only 24% of them had informed their doctor that they had detransitioned. His source for this was a study from the famously WP:FRINGE Lisa Littman. I do think you reverted in good faith but think it was against wiki-policy so please self-revert. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the commentary tag. I have reverted. I don't think citation of Littman's detransition study would qualify as fringe? If a source was claiming that her related ROGD hypothesis is 'proven' or true, it definitely would. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, know that feeling lol. A paper citing wouldn't necessarily be fringe, but her positions within the community are generally considered fringe. In addition to the original retracted ROGD study, there's this one, and per this SPLC report, her paper on detransition rates was aided by anti-trans groups known for disinformation. Her surveys being unrepresentative and problematic are somewhat of a pattern at this point lol. I'm guessing some of these reviews might mention it or the same concerns, I'm currently drafting a rewrite of occurrence based on them and cutting down the other primary sources. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Understandable. Many sources on detransition are going to cite Littmans paper on detransition, and I really don't see how that makes them fringe unless a particular source is insisting ROGD is a proven hypothesis. For example, Kinnon Ross MacKinnon cites the same Littman paper in this BMJ analysis. MacKinnon is a mainstream and serious detransition researcher.

Regarding representativeness; it's the case that all studies on detransition are unrepresentative. There is no way to gain a representative sample of detransitioners, and there probably never will be. It might be the case that Littman's sample of detransitioners are a particular cohort of detransitioners that are not found in other studies (and vice versa). Sampling bias is a problem with all convenience sample studies, and this can go in many directions. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Littman's ROGD study was not retracted. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. The university took down its press release on the study bc of its poor methodology; the journal carried out a post publication review leading to a correction being issued noting her data didn't support her original central claim (that rogd exists) and only supported the fact some parents believe it does; the journal's editor then apologized to the trans community for letting such a sloppy study through; and dozens of health organizations wrote a joint statement noting there's no evidence ROGD is real, it's stigmatizing, and misinfo claiming it's real is used to hurt trans kids; dozens of human rights groups called BS on it; and dozens of hate groups cite it to justify attacking trans kids. But yes, it wasn't retracted, just corrected for sloppy and harmful claims. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist – wondering if you would take a look at the third paragraph in the lead. Particularly the second sentence onwards. Is this a bit long (relative to what's covered in the body) and is it adequately sourced? Zenomonoz (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist – in case you missed this^. I do feel like that lead paragraph is a little bit over the top with allegations of "censorship" on research etc. Just wondering if this is even adequately sourced? I looked at the sources provided, and two of them refer to the same single incident of a Bath university researcher (National Post, BBC). The other two sources don't seem to be about alleged censorship. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2025

The national USA federal site states it is up to 13% for de-transitioning which means the very low number represented are not accurate or true. 161.7.22.188 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? What is the "national USA federal site"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A 13% number was just added to the article recently now. It seems to be from the 2015 survey cited. I wonder if the IP may have meant the paper was mirrored on the NIH's .gov site. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"Radical feminists on the political left"

In the "Cultural and political impact" section. I presume this is talking specifically about trans-exclusionary radical feminists, but the wikilink is to Radical feminism. If I'm right on that point, I'm not sure it's fair to say in wikivoice that they're on the political left. Posting here rather than editing boldly because this seems like a fairly scrutinised article and I don't have time to go through all the sources and check. lp0 on fire () 09:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the correct link would be to trans-exclusionary radical feminism, and that very article states that In several countries, gender-critical feminist groups have formed alliances with right-wing, far-right, and anti-feminist organisations. Gender-critical feminism has been described as transphobic by feminist and scholarly critics. It is opposed by many feminist [...] It seems dubious to label this ideology as belonging to the political left. This should be quite uncontroversial, so I shall go ahead with the edits. Amateur Truther (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. lp0 on fire () 20:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Source

I am not particularly familiar with the nuances of WP:MEDRS, but I came across this resource in my recent research . I'm not sure if it can be considered a WP:MEDRS and would appreciate commentary Katzrockso (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

New section: Litigation

I have added a short, sourced section on detransition-related litigation (UK and U.S.), placed at the end of the article for proportional weight. Comments welcome. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Reordered some things, added more sources, more context, and more info. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits — appreciate you adding sources and additional context. Path2space (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion of UK policy on puberty blockers does not seem, to me, to fit the section heading or the article. Is that material about detransitioning? Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I somewhat agree in that the case does not directly discuss detransitioning, but I figured I'd attempt to make it work, rather than deleting the entire section. I tried to make the connection more obvious. I'm definitely not married to it though. What someone who has detransitioned has done doesn't necessarily belong on the detrans wiki. Cheers Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both — I agree with the concern raised. My original intent was simply to acknowledge that detransition-related litigation exists, without expanding into broader policy or advocacy debates.

I think the shorter, original version works better here: a brief mention of litigation, with one UK and one U.S. example, keeping the focus on detransition rather than on puberty-blocker policy or activism. More detailed discussion of those topics may be better suited to other articles.

I’m happy to trim the section back to that summary-style scope if there are no objections. ~~~~ Path2space (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I’ve trimmed the section back to summary scope per the discussion above. The more detailed UK policy material may be a better fit for articles focused on regulation and case law, such as Transgender health care (United Kingdom section) or Bell v Tavistock. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've changed this to a level 3 heading in an attempt to help resolve some of the due weight issues, because it's not obvious to me that "litigation about detransitions" is one of the main aspects of detransitioning, and it fits nicely under "cultural and political impact". lp0 on fire () 09:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

First detransitioner to win medical-malpractice lawsuit

The first gender “detransitioner” medical-malpractice case to go to trial resulted in a $2 million dollar verdict against the medical professionals who approved a double mastectomy for the plaintiff, Fox Varian, in 2019 when she was only 16. From the Epoch Times.... https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/detransitioner-wins-2-million-medical-malpractice-lawsuit/

Is there a reliable source for this story? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the story has since been added to the article with a reliable source. Path2space (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Path2space it's not clear that Deseret News is a reliable source for WP:BLP information. The WP:RSP entry states that The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news, but no mention of non-local news stories or more broadly. The latest cited discussion has an editor state I would never use them for info about the church or for BLP but they should be fine for uncontroversial non-BLP stuff, so I am not sure if this is reliable source in this context. Katzrockso (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is Benjamin Ryan's catalogue of lawsuits DUE for inclusion here? Katzrockso (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that there are around 30 such pending lawsuits is relevant since the first such lawsuit just saw a verdict. It is seen as a test case, so many more such lawsuits may follow suit (pun intended!) Katzrockso, you removed this content, citing WP:COATRACK: "In the wake of the Varian malpractice verdict, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons became the first major medical association in the U.S. to change its guidance on gender transition surgery for minors, recommending to its members that chest, genital, and facial surgeries not be performed until age 19. The American Medical Association issued a statement agreeing that evidence on gender transition surgeries in minors is insufficient and that such procedures should typically be deferred to adulthood." The sourcing in the NYT specifically cites and connects to the Varian lawsuit. "On Tuesday, however, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons became the first major medical association to shift its guidance on gender transition surgery for minors..." I believe this is relevant because of the timing. Medical groups may be changing their guidance due to fear of litigation. The medical malpractice lawsuits and subsequent changes in medical association guidelines are related and relevant here IMO. Marquardtika (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Katzrockso here, the content would probably be relevant on a page dedicated to the lawsuit or lawsuits in general. However, on this page where how relevant the litigation is to detransition in general is an open question I think adding more content is dubious and is well described as "connected but tangential". LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to have a page like Litigation related to transgender rights, Transgender rights litigation, Detransition litigation, etc.? Marquardtika (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised Transgender rights litigation is redlinked. lp0 on fire () 16:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Transgender rights in the United States has a tag on it saying the article is too long and we should consider splitting into sub-articles. Seems like Transgender rights litigation in the United States could be a reasonable split? Marquardtika (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the removed content would fit in an article like that. Katzrockso (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I've started Draft:Varian v Einhorn. I also agree there should be a page for detrans lawsuits collectively. I started a Draft:Detransitioner lawsuits a few years ago and never finished it, but I can get that undeleted again now. Eievie (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a bunch of original analysis that we can go back and forth about all day. I have seen other sources state that the case was decided strictly as a medical malpractice case, not a "test case" for other litigation. The New York Times, the most reliable source to report on this, did not mention or connect this lawsuit to any other pending lawsuits, which have only been enumerated by Benjamin Ryan, who is of dubious provenance. Katzrockso (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Numerous errors

I've noticed numerous errors on this page.

Paragraph 1 claims that detransition is generally agreed to be rare. It would be more accurate to say that it's not possible to know what detransition rates are by the conventional means of medical statistics, as detransitioners are infamously lost to follow-up (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w), and as there is no ICD code for detransition that would enable researchers to track people seeking detransition-related care (it all gets lumped under gender dysphoria and transition-related codes).

Citation 3 links to a less than high-quality source that references the work of an activist group. If the claim that detransition-related groups are tied to conversion therapy can be sourced better it should be; if it can't it should be flagged as needing a citation, as this is not currently well-evidenced.

The claim "detransition and regret over transition are often erroneously conflated" needs a citation. By whom? At what rates? Same for the conflation claim regarding desistance.

The claim "The definitions are primarily used to claim that transgender children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s" needs a citation. Who established that these are the sources being cited, and who established that they are of poor quality?

The claim "The term has become associated with movements that aim to restrict the access of transgender people to transition-related healthcare by over-emphasizing the risk of regret and detransition" is partially cited by an op-ed [7] and seems to be a nonsequitur given the fact that detransitioners exist and need a self-identification term to describe themselves regardless of how other people view the term. This strays into the realm of bias.

The claim "Advocates for Trans Equality's 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (a cross-sectional nonprobability survey of transgender adults) reported a history of detransition in 13% of those who had pursued broadly-defined gender affirmation" is irrelevant to the occurrence section unless it's disclosed that the USTS requires that the respondents currently identify as transgender. It isn't a survey of detransitioners, it's a survey of transitioners, so it targets the wrong group to establish detransition rates.

The following paragraph about the rarity of detransition at least needs the same caveats that the analogous claim in paragraph 1 does regarding loss to followup and a lack of a medical code.

The next paragraph points out that the USTS is a survey of currently trans people. Once again, this is irrelevant in a section about occurrence in that it is targeting the wrong respondent population. This supports the occurrence of detransition-and-retransition, not detransition. The following paragraph then gives the impression that this reliably represents the experiences of permanent detransitioners when in fact there is no high-quality survey of detransitioners due to the forementioned factors.

By contrast the section "Forced medical detransition" is quite in-depth and seems designed to underscore the ongling implication that detransition is rarely chosen permanently and freely. This could be its own Wikipedia article and perhaps deserves to be, but it highlights that this section is once again concerned primarily with current transitioners, not detransitioners.

Under the "Culture and Political Impact" section, it is unclear why Ky Schevers is the only first-hand cited source on the detransition experience. Schevers is once again a detransition-and-retransitioner, and no such space is given to the points of view of any permanent detransitioner.

If this article is primarily concerned with detransition-and-retransition, which it strongly appears to be, perhaps it should not be titled "detransition." Eastwardbound (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The claim "The definitions are primarily used to claim that transgender children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s" needs a citation. Who established that these are the sources being cited, and who established that they are of poor quality? -- It's right there, in Baer (2022): The definitions of desistance, while diverse, were all used to say that TGE children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, a concept based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Same goes for your other requests for citations. They're right there. You just need to click the little blue numbers. What exactly is your argument for Xtra Magazine not being reliable for the claim it is being used for? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)