Detransition and transition regret Detransition is the process of halting or reversing social, medical, or legal aspects of a gender transition, partially or completely. It can be temporary or permanent. Detransition and regret over transition are often erroneously conflated, though there are cases of detransition without regret and regret without detransition. Detransition also does not require a reversal of transgender identity. Prevalence of regret for receiving gender-affirming care is very low. Regarding gender-affirming surgery (GAS) in particular, a 2024 review stated, "When comparing regret after GAS to regret after other surgeries and major life decisions, the percentage of patients experiencing regret is extremely low." Data suggests that detransition—however defined—is rare, with detransition often caused by factors such as societal or familial pressure, community stigma, or financial difficulties. Studies did not control for such outside influences (which likely inflated rates of detransition) and found prevalence of discontinuation—before any treatment, while under puberty blockers, and during hormone therapy—to range 0.8–7.4%, 1–7.6%, and 1.6–9.8% respectively. In the United States and the United Kingdom, conservative media outlets and the
Alliance Defending Freedom have promoted high-profile detransitioners and advocacy groups who claim that detransition and transition regret are prevalent. The global
anti-gender movement has justified anti-trans rhetoric and policies by pointing to detransitioners, arguing they prove transitioning is a hoax or necessitate protecting transgender people from medical transition, distorting the findings that detransition is rare and often caused by social pressure. States in the United States have primarily relied on anecdotes to argue that detransition is cause for bans on gender-affirming care. Detransitioner
Chloe Cole has supported several such state bans as a member of the advocacy group
Do No Harm. Former detransitioners
Ky Schevers and
Elisa Rae Shupe have detailed how they were recruited by organizations and activists who used their stories to limit transgender rights before they retransitioned and started working against them.
Most gender-dysphoric children will not remain transgender It has been claimed that most (usually ~80%) of children with gender dysphoria or a trans identity will not identify as transgender past adolescence. This claim is not supported by the evidence and is based on studies on "
desistance" from the 1960s–80s and 2000s. The claim has often been used to support the criminalization of gender-affirming care. The term
desistance was first used for trans children by Kenneth Zucker in 2003, who borrowed the term from its usage in
oppositional defiance disorder; there, it is regarded as a positive outcome, a history that reflects the pathologization of transgender identities. Recent work has found that the vast majority of pre-pubertal children who express transgender identities and socially transition with parental support continue to do so in adolescence.
Transgender identity as a mental health condition Legislative efforts to ban gender-affirming care in the United States have relied on the unfounded narrative that gender dysphoria is caused by underlying
mental illness,
trauma, or
neurodivergence, such as
autism and
ADHD. Though transgender people have higher rates of mental illness, there is no evidence these cause gender dysphoria and evidence suggests this is due to
minority stress and
discrimination experienced by transgender people. The American Psychological Association states "misleading and unfounded narratives" such as "mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence" have created a hostile environment for trans youth and led to misconceptions about the psychological and medical care they require.
Social contagion and rapid onset gender dysphoria In 2018, Lisa Littman authored a study that has since been heavily corrected, arguing modern youth are experiencing rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), a new type of gender dysphoria spread through social contagion and peer groups. The study relied on anonymous parental reports on transgender children collected from websites known for anti-trans misinformation and
gender-critical politics who were informed of the study's hypothesis. As a result, a coalition of psychological professional bodies issued a position statement calling for eliminating the use of ROGD clinically and diagnostically in 2021. It stated that "there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents" and that "the proliferation of misinformation regarding ROGD" had led to "over 100 bills under consideration in legislative bodies across the country that seek to limit the rights of transgender adolescents" predicated on ROGD's unsupported claims. – including
gender exploratory therapy (GET), a form of
conversion therapy. Practitioners of GET frame medical transition as a last resort and argue that their patient's gender dysphoria may be caused by factors such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autism. Some practitioners avoid using their patients' chosen names and pronouns while questioning their identification. There are no known empirical studies examining psychosocial or medical outcomes following GET. Concerns have been raised that by not providing an estimated length of time for the therapy, the delays in medical interventions may compound mental suffering in trans youth, Multiple groups exist worldwide to promote GET and successfully influence legal discussions and clinical guidance in some regions.
Therapy First (TF), previously named the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA), asserts that "psychological approaches should be the first-line treatment for all cases of gender dysphoria", that
social transition is "risky", and that medical interventions for transgender youth are "experimental and should be avoided if possible". All of TF's leaders are members of
Genspect, and many are also members of the
Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), both of which promote GET and argue that gender-affirming care should not be available to those under 25. It was popularized in 2003 by
J. Michael Bailey in his book
The Man Who Would Be Queen and heavily promoted by the far-right
Human Biodiversity Institute of which Blanchard is a member. There is little to no evidence for the theory, and it has been criticized on numerous grounds. This has included claims that the medical transition of transgender youth is decided upon their own, incapable consent, though scientific literature demonstrates that clinical decisions heavily value communications with parents. This also extends to claims that minors are being given gender-affirming genital surgeries routinely. However, records of minors with such surgeries are very rare, and most of the recorded minors have been 17 years old with full parental support. Prior to the onset of puberty, children are only eligible for social transition, and puberty blockers are not given until puberty's onset. In June 2023, the Endocrine Society released a statement emphasizing that "pediatric gender-affirming care is designed to take a conservative approach". It explained that younger children are supported in exploring their gender identity as needed. Medical interventions are reserved for older adolescents and adults, tailored individually "to maximize the time teenagers and their families have to make decisions about their transitions". They concluded that major medical organizations agree on waiting until individuals are their country's age of majority for genital surgery.
Gender-affirming care is gay conversion therapy In the late 2010s and early 2020s, misinformation that gender-affirming care is gay conversion therapy gained popularity among opponents of transgender rights, particularly
gender-critical feminists and conservative and anti-trans gay people. The claims are based on misinformation that most trans children are simply just gay and only identify as transgender due to internalized homophobia, and that by allowing them to transition, their sexuality is turned from gay to straight.
European nations are banning gender-affirming care Among anti-trans activists and
Republican politicians in the United States, a common talking point used to justify outright bans on gender-affirming care for minors is the idea that other countries, particularly European countries, have banned the treatments outright. This misrepresents the cautionary stance adopted by a few European countries: some medical groups have taken a more cautionary stance, discouraging or limiting the use of puberty blockers without banning or criminalizing the treatments, unlike many US states.
Slate Magazine compared this to misinformation made by the
anti-abortion movement in the United States, which similarly makes false claims that other countries, especially European countries, have much tighter restrictions on abortion than the United States to justify enacting bans on it. The magazine said that the point of this misinformation, for both gender-affirming care and abortion, is to paint the United States as an extreme global outlier that is "shamefully out of step with the rest of the world", which is untrue. According to
Transgender Europe, as of late 2024, two-thirds of
European Union member states allow trans youth to access puberty blockers. Additionally, they noted that member states of the European Union were not moving towards bans and there was "significant disinformation around the real state of affairs" of trans-specific care, though transgender people were still often pathologized and mandated to undergo psychiatric diagnosis.
Norway Misinformation that Norway had banned gender-affirming care has proliferated on social media. In 2023, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board, an independent non-governmental organization, issued a non-binding report finding the evidence for the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy in youth insufficient and recommended changing to a cautious approach. The board is not responsible for setting healthcare policy; the
Directorate of Health, the governmental body responsible for healthcare policy in Norway, is considering but has not implemented the recommendations.
Sweden Misinformation that Sweden had banned gender-affirming care for minors has proliferated on social media. Some Republican politicians in the
United States have used this misinformation to justify their outright bans on the treatments, In reality, genital surgery is rarely performed upon minors and only provided for the most severe and extraordinary cases of gender dysphoria. The restriction on genital surgery has been in place since the passage of a 1975 anti-eugenics law and does not ban transgender care. and two other university hospitals followed suit. These are recommendations and do not equate to a ban on the treatment, as physicians and clinics such as Karolinska have latitude deciding which cases qualify.
France Republican politicians have also used misinformation about the situation in France to justify their outright bans on transgender health care.
Denmark In 2023, in response to an increasing number of referrals for treatment, Denmark adopted a somewhat more cautious approach to access to transgender health care, resulting in fewer trans people being able to access hormone treatment than before.
Finland In 2023, misinformation spread online that Finland had banned gender-affirming care for minors. This misinformation cites guidelines in Finland, created by the Council for Choices in Health Care in 2020, which prioritized psychotherapy over medical transition. However, these guidelines are a recommendation, not a mandate, and they also recommend that cross sex hormones be considered for transgender minors "if it can be ascertained that their identity as the other sex is of a permanent nature and causes severe dysphoria." Transgender minors in Finland can still access gender-affirming care at one of the country's two centralized gender identity units for minors. Top surgery is also available to patients older than 16 in The Netherlands. ==Impact==