Summary

This essay by a sociology doctoral student reports no new data. It argues that "detransition" covers three different things: stopping or reversing a transition, identifying as a detransitioner, and having a bad experience of transition. Studies often blur them. The author says most research has tried to count or predict detransition in order to prevent it, which does little for people who have already detransitioned. Regret studies have weak spots: requests to reverse surgery come years later, many people just stop going to clinics, and counting lawsuits or "known cases" misses most experiences. The author calls for interview-based research with detransitioners to build care plans, including guidance on stopping hormones. It is an openly transfeminist position paper; its views are argued, not tested.

Key findings

• 저자는 흔히 ‘디트랜지션’으로 뭉뚱그려지는 세 가지 개념을 구분합니다. 디트랜지션하는 행위, 디트랜지셔너로 정체화하는 것, 전환에서 나쁜 경험을 하는 것입니다.
• 에세이는 기존 연구를 ‘디트랜스 예방’(얼마나 자주, 왜 일어나는지 연구)과 ‘디트랜스 지원’(진료를 개선하기 위해 경험 자체를 연구)으로 나눕니다.
• 스웨덴 자료(Dhejne 등, 2014)에서 수술을 되돌려 달라는 요청은 통상 수술 약 8년 후에 나왔습니다. 따라서 2001~2010년의 0.3% 비율은 충분한 시간이 지나지 않았다는 이유만으로도 너무 낮을 수 있으며, 그 기간을 제외하면 321명 중 14명(4.4%)이 되돌리기를 요청했습니다.
• 클리닉이 알고 있는 후회 사례(예: 동의만으로 호르몬을 시작하는 클리닉 설문의 0.1%)는 ‘중대한 결함이 있다’고 하는데, 많은 디트랜지셔너가 클리닉에 알리기보다 발길을 끊기 때문입니다.
• 당시 디트랜지션에 대한 의학적 지침은 없었고, 수술 없이 호르몬을 쓴 사람들의 디트랜지션에 대한 연구도 거의 없었습니다.
• 저자는 디트랜지셔너와 함께 하는 인터뷰 기반 연구와, 호르몬을 안전하게 중단하는 방법에 대한 의학 연구를 요구합니다.

Abstract

Detransition is tied to three related but distinct concepts – the act of detransitioning, the 'detransitioner' identity, and the negative transition experience – which I refer to collectively using the umbrella term 'detrans'. Detrans research is inevitably political and value-laden, but different methodologies and research questions lend themselves to divergent goals. Drawing on work in the feminist philosophy of science and transfeminist scholarship, I draw a conceptual distinction between research aligned with the goals of 'preventing detrans' vs. 'supporting detrans'. Existing research has constructed detransition as a negative clinical outcome to be prevented because it has been focused on the causes of detrans and the detrans rate. Research associated with the goal of supporting detrans is defined by its focus on the experience and process of detrans itself. Research on preventing detrans constructs detrans as a divisive issue of zero-sum clinical risk, and it is not oriented toward helping people who detransition or who have a negative transition experience. Research on supporting detrans, in contrast, constructs detrans as an issue of inclusion and can be used to improve the medical and mental health care that detrans people receive. I argue that there is an urgent need for qualitative sociological research involving detrans people. I conclude with some broad guidelines for researchers studying detrans.

Conclusion

The author recommends that researchers be precise about which aspect of detrans they study (the act, the identity, or the negative experience), how their measures relate to it, and how the study is described to participants, and that they consult potential participants throughout. Qualitative, interview-based research with online detransition communities is described as feasible and urgently needed whether detransition is rising or not, without "rising epidemic" or "contagion" rhetoric, and detransitioners' calls for medical research on safely stopping hormones are endorsed. Qualitative work should not be used for broad causal claims. Detransitioners should be treated as more than "canaries" signalling a wider risk: their experiences are real, distinct and worth studying in their own right.