Summary

This paper suggests splitting detransition into two types. In 'core' detransition, a person stops identifying as transgender and identifies with their birth sex again. In 'non-core' detransition, a person stops or reverses transition but still identifies as trans, because of things like discrimination, health worries or being unhappy with results. The author argues this would clear up confusion, since 'detransition' is used to mean both. He gives advice for clinicians: thorough mental health assessment, honest consent about benefits, risks and unknowns, offering talking therapy alongside medical options, long-term follow-up, and guidelines for both groups. It is a useful way to think about the topic, but it is based on stories and opinion rather than data, and nobody has yet tested whether the types work in practice.

Key findings

• 論文は2つのタイプを提案しています。「コア」または一次的なデトランジション（もはやトランスジェンダーとは自認せず、生まれつきの性別を再び自認する）と、「非コア」または二次的なデトランジション（引き続きトランスだと自認しながら、トランジションをやめる、または元に戻す）です。
• コアのデトランジションの理由には、トランジションで性別への苦痛が和らがなかったこと、その苦痛がトラウマ、同性愛者であることへの内なる恥、性差別、その他のメンタルヘルスの問題と関連していると気づくようになったことが含まれます。
• 非コアのデトランジションの理由には、医学的な問題、結果への不満、差別、お金や支援の不足、家族からの圧力、子どもがほしいこと、妊孕性を守りたいことが含まれます。
• これらのタイプは固定されたものではありません。非コアのデトランジションが後にコアのデトランジションになることもあり、生まれつきの性別を再び自認する前に、しばらくノンバイナリーと自認する人もいます。
• 著者は、デトランジショナーでは一般の人々より自閉症が多いという非公式な報告に触れていますが、これには研究が必要だと述べています。
• 徹底したメンタルヘルスの評価、利益、リスク、未知のことを含む率直な同意、医学的な選択肢に加えて探索的な心理療法を提供すること、そして長期の追跡を勧めています。
• デトランジションは必ずしも後悔ではありません。臨床医には、批判的にならずに対応し、両方のグループのための臨床ガイドラインを書くよう求めています。

Abstract

Gender detransition, i.e., the process of reidentifying with one's birth sex after having undergone a gender transition, has captured the attention of the scientific community, the media, and the public in the last few years. Despite not being a genuinely novel phenomenon from a historical perspective—psychiatrist Harry Benjamin described one such case in his 1966 book The Transsexual Phenomenon—, research on detransition has been absent from the academic literature until recently. As a consequence, our understanding of this issue is still limited and primarily based on anecdotal evidence, which comes from a variety of sources such as personal testimonies shared on the internet, parent reports, informal surveys carried out by detransitioners, media outlets, support groups, documentaries, case studies, and the experiences of clinicians who work with this cohort. Gender detransition is as scientifically fascinating as socially controversial, for it poses significant professional and bioethical challenges for those clinicians working in the field of gender dysphoria. However, the scarcity of information, along with the lack of formal recognition of detransitioners and their experiences, has contributed to a state of things in which we fall short of a shared and scientifically consolidated language to approach detransition. This gap has favored the proliferation of inconsistent usages of the concept, thus adding to the confusion and unclarity. The term 'detransition' has been used to describe two types of situations. In the first, a person stops identifying as transgender after having socially, legally, or medically transitioned. In the second, a person stops transitioning due to health concerns, lack of societal/familial support, or dissatisfaction with the results—but does not cease to identify as transgender. This article proposes a typology of gender detransition based on the cessation or continuation of a transgender identity, distinguishing between core (primary) and non-core (secondary) detransitions, and discusses its implications for healthcare providers working with gender dysphoric patients.

Conclusion

Gender detransition is an emerging yet poorly understood phenomenon in our society, which poses significant professional and bioethical challenges for clinicians working in the field of GD. The absence of systematic research around detransition has given rise to inconsistencies in its conceptual use and application, adding to the unclarity and confusion. A typology of gender detransition based on the cessation or the continuation of a transgender identity could address these issues, while offering clinicians a framework to reflect on their therapeutic endeavor when treating patients with GD. Furthermore, recognizing the disparities between core and non-core detransitioners could also help develop clinical guidelines, thus assisting healthcare providers to accommodate their different needs and demands. The conducting of comprehensive exploratory assessments can prove to be a useful tool to ensure thoughtful decision-making and prevent any potential harm associated with the experience of detransition. In conclusion, detransitioners are an underserved population whose experiences we need to listen to and understand if we truly aim to improve healthcare for people with GD. This will require extensive research to learn more about their unique experiences, motivations, needs, and demands.