Talk:Detransition

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)