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

• 作者把常被混在一起称作“去过渡”的三个概念区分开来：去过渡的行为、认同自己是去过渡者，以及对过渡有糟糕的体验。
• 文章将现有研究分为“预防去过渡”（研究它有多常发生及原因）和“支持去过渡”（研究体验本身以改进护理）。
• 在瑞典数据（Dhejne等人，2014年）中，逆转手术的申请通常在手术后约8年提出。因此2001至2010年0.3%的比率可能仅仅因为时间不够而偏低；去掉那一时期，321人中有14人（4.4%）要求逆转。
• 诊所已知的后悔案例（例如仅凭同意就开始激素的诊所调查中的0.1%）被称为“有重大缺陷”，因为许多去过渡者是停止就诊，而不是告诉他们的诊所。
• 当时，对于去过渡没有医学指导，对于未手术只使用激素的人去过渡的研究也几乎没有。
• 作者呼吁与去过渡者一起开展基于访谈的研究，并开展关于如何安全停用激素的医学研究。

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.