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

• 作者區分了常被混為一談的「去過渡」三個概念：去過渡的行為、認同為去過渡者，以及對過渡有不好的經驗。
• 文章將現有研究分為「預防去過渡」（研究它多常發生及原因）和「支持去過渡」（研究經驗本身以改善照護）。
• 在瑞典的資料中（Dhejne 等人，2014），逆轉手術的申請通常在手術後約 8 年才出現。因此 2001 到 2010 年 0.3% 的比率，可能只是因為經過的時間不夠而偏低；排除那段期間後，321 人中有 14 人（4.4%）申請逆轉。
• 門診所知的後悔個案（例如僅憑同意就開始荷爾蒙的門診調查中的 0.1%）被稱為「有重大缺陷」，因為許多去過渡者是不再就診，而不是告訴他們的門診。
• 當時，沒有關於去過渡的醫療指引，對於只使用荷爾蒙而沒有手術的人的去過渡，幾乎沒有研究。
• 作者呼籲對去過渡者進行以訪談為基礎的研究，並針對如何安全停用荷爾蒙進行醫學研究。

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.