A response to Gender-GP's take on Detransitioners

Opinion: how Gender-GP's article "Detransition Facts and Statistics 2022: Exploding the Myths Around Detransitioning"

Disgraced organisation Gender GP, decided to further dig themselves in deeper by spreading misinformation regarding detransition and detransitioners in a recent article, Detransition Facts and Statistics 2022: Exploding the Myths Around Detransitioning posted to their website on June 21st 2022. In this piece, I’m going to examine the claims as they’ve been presented, along with my observations of the underlying messages at play.

In August, Alex, head moderator of the discussion subreddit /r/detrans posted a comprehensive Twitter thread debunking the article, however, an important point to note is that the links used in the article have changed multiple times. Thankfully, this has been captured in archives taken at regular intervals since the original posting in June.

Four months later, I’m still seeing this garbage regurgitated in Twitter exchanges and cited as a verified resource on gender-affirming websites. Yet, because of the vast rift within the dialogue, pro-gender-affirming audiences will desperately cling to anything that may confirm their bias.

In Gender-GP’s case, they are less worried about misinformation, and more concerned about their business model being impacted by the wave of detransitioners and damning reports like the Cass Review.

Gender-GP have not only fanned the flames of misinformation but have brought further harm to gender-questioning people, with what is nothing more than an unchecked self-serving fearmongering piece of propaganda, that lazily and recklessly attempts to link the detransition movement to Russian money, NGO and hate groups, as well as using themselves as a key reference point.

---

‘Detransition may even be due to Conversion Therapy’

Screencap of Gender-GP’s article on detransitioners

I’m not going to argue the word salad of definitions, otherwise, we’d be here all day. Instead, I’m more concerned about the references and summaries they’ve come to. For instance, in the first section, they attempt to link detransition to the ‘negative effects of conversion therapy.’

Conversion therapy isn’t a term to be taken lightly, nor should the experiences of people who have gone through historic conversion therapy be used so flippantly. What gay men and women went through in decades past, was horrific, barbaric and highly unethical, it’s left scars and wounds that never quite heal.

Not only does Gender GP claim that Detransition may be due to conversion therapy, but the source is a link to a previous blog post, which reduces the experience of conversion therapy to the mere act of being rejected for treatment by the Gender clinic. Hardly conversion therapy.

Critically, nowhere on the referenced page does it even mention detransition, let alone in the context of conversion therapy.

Isn’t it quite something, that a gender-affirming therapist does exactly this in the context of gender identity? They have an implicit bias, they do not allow for dissent or doubt, it’s affirmation at any cost, which surely is the essence of conversion therapy practices, operating on a personal belief and premise, rather than the interests of the patient.

What they don’t dare address, however, is what I would call modern-day conversion therapy, where gay, effeminate boys and masculine girls are told that their perfectly normal way of expressing themselves, is a sign of being the wrong sex, and that should be medicalised to avoid certain death, as soon as possible.

---

‘Facts must come from Reputable Sources About Detransitioners’

You can quite clearly tell that Gender-GP did not watch the hearing concerning the $186 million in funding for anti-gender movements, and I’ll put money on it that they didn’t read the encompassing report either. Gender-GP is more than entitled to write opinion pieces, however, the issue lies when an organisation like this one seeks to present opinion as fact.

The underlying implication of this section is to distil fear, distrust and doubt in any information that counters the narrative that Gender-GP sloppily construct, in other words, “don’t trust detransitioners, only the approved source, like us”.

“$186 million in funding for anti-gender movement”

The hearing they mention, heavily references the 2021 European Parliamentary Forum Report, Tip of the Iceberg, discussing the efforts to roll back women’s rights, specifically abortion rights across Europe by far-right extremist groups.

They cite examples of LGB communities being impacted by this as a consequence, but not as a direct result of lobbying from Non-Governmental Organisations, as outlined in the report. Consequently, the trans people or transgender is mentioned once and is in direct reference to Spiked’s Reporting on Trans Activism in 2018. One article, no funding, no receipts.

Nowhere in the report, is the claim made that this is being used to target trans affirmative health care specifically, however it does claim that these groups are looking to roll back LGBTQ+ rights, in tandem with their largely anti-abortion campaigns in Eastern Europe.

“over 50 anti-gender actors/Russia”

Phrased like this, a reader could easily think this relates to detransitioners or even a prominent gender-critical voice, but rather this is actually about the paid far-right organisations which are promoting rather reductive views of abortion and marriage equality. All in all, the purpose of these proposed pundits is to create chaos and divergence on the topics of women’s bodily autonomy, abortion and marriage within the European Union, not to roll back gender-affirming care.

The article goes to the extreme length to propose that Russian Oligarchs are working hand in hand with Conservative Christians in the United States, which shows a significantly poor understanding of how each group views one other.

---

‘Information on Detransition is not reliable’

Screencap of Gender-GP’s Article on Detransitioner

If Gender-GP is so confident the 2013 Study on Desistance isn’t reliable, then why not even cite it? What strikes me here is the last sentence, specifically the words “The only justifiable conclusion”, which in itself tells both you and me, that their interest is predetermined, regardless of what sources say.

Note, the studies linked on this page starting with “Young-People with...” strictly refer to an analysis of the 2015 US Transgender Survey of adults.

This goes to criticise the methodology of the 2013 study on desistance, without acknowledging the inherent flaws of using an online survey for adults, about young people, which implies children too; as they go on to say in the next sentence.

If they had read it, they would have seen that the conclusion was, the approach to Gender Dysphoria ‘may need to be developed independently for natal boys and girls as opposed to “80% of children desist”, as the claim goes.

I’m beginning to wonder if Gender-GP has taken even 5 minutes to read anything they’ve mentioned in this article or have just blindly selected links on whatever they typed into google.

---

‘Detransition Facts and Statistics 2022’

---

---

And we’re off to another fantastic start! Detransition Facts and Statistics 2022 quotes articles from 2014, 2015, 2018 and 2019, yet the title alone gives off another impression; that this is recent and new information.

That in itself is deceptive.

UK Study

The study measured almost 4000 individual records of UK Gender Clinic patients between August 2016 and August 2017.

The study states that 0.47% experienced regret, based on the above criteria, which I hope you see as methodologies go, makes key assumptions that;

1. A detransitioner has made their regret known to a practitioner, which often is not the case with detransitioners.

2. That each individual would use the exact terms detransition and/or regret.

Again, we must address the vital flaw and conundrum that this study is based on active patients at the gender clinic. Many people who experience regret or who detransition, do so years after the clinic discharges them. The correct way to gauge this information would be to follow ups on previous patients rather than existing ones, something that simply does not happen with the UK Gender Clinics.

US Study

The USTS study is perhaps the most cited and heavily lent on by organisations such as Gender GP. Alex has meticulously laid out the flaws in the USTS study, namely how it discounts detransitioners.

What’s telling in the survey, is even with tight controls; 8% experienced regret or detransition, a number that steadily seems to be rising from “less than 1% and extraordinarily rare” to “more common than previously thought.”

The USTS study itself is a rabbit hole, but an important one to understand. Organisations and surveys like this form the basis of many gender-affirming organisations like Gender-GP, which is why these studies must be given fair scrutiny.

Swedish Study

No, no, no! Not that Swedish Study, but this one. It must be said though, it’s a shame they didn’t use “The” Swedish Study, you know, the one that states transitioning itself increases suicidality nearly 17 times versus normal population controls.

But I digress, the fifty-year timescale used is an impressive measurement, yet one of the bigger factors it may not be taken into account in this study, which may be indicative of regret; is mortality.

Netherlands

The findings of this study suggest that “Only less than 1% experience regret”. However, what’s missing from this is the methodology, again as the point above in the UK Study - questions remain over the selective methodology these studies implement.

Once again, we’re met with bias, the authors of the study are all members of the Dutch Gender Clinic. Call me obtuse, but I think there is an implicit bias when you’re studying your organisation, surely?

---

‘Less than 3% experience regret, but may not detransition’

Screencap of Gender GP’s Article on Detransitioners

Again, we have presented a line that assures the reader that these statistics are from 2022, but they are not.

Both links highlighted were originally references to Gender-GP’s blog posts as citations, one post from 2021 and the other from 2019. However, this was later updated to reference a 2019 study and a web article referencing the 2017 study, which I’m afraid to inform them, is not 2022.

Though I can’t criticise the article too much, it does make the point that suicidality, mental health and general well-being do not improve post-transition.

Bit of an own goal there Gender-GP?

---

‘People Detransition due to social Pressure’

Screencap of Gender-GP’s article on Detransitioners

There is an evident bias reoccurring, which the inexperienced eye may not see so clearly. It’s in the language, methodology and measurements. It plagues every study we see and this one is no different.

Studies around detransition will fall victim to the bias of the study itself, in this case, we have the framing of the question of ‘pressure’ and a lack of investigation into the personal motivations, ergo framing detransition as a phenomenon that is bestowed upon the trans person, rather than something decided as an individual choice.

The underpinning message is, detransitioners are just trans people waiting to retransition.

Framings and blatant bias have caused the Detrans community, to take matters into their own hands and find out for themselves.

Alex🦎 @DaysGoByGoBy

This twitter thread is based on the contents of this Kofi blog post, content is shortened for the sake of Twitter format but hopefully in a form that is understandable. It is recommended for full data viewing thread on ko-fi. ko-fi.com/post/The-rdetr…

Alex ran a comprehensive study on detransitioners, exploring their reasons for detransition and found that pressure was most certainly not the leading factor, as Gender GP propose.

The Findings from Alex’s survey echo Elie Vandenbussche 2021 study on the needs and support of detransitioners.

It often falls to the community to do the work many academics are afraid of touching. It shouldn’t fall to anyone within the trans/detrans sphere to find this information.

Idealistically, studies should be done away from Gender Affirming organisations and lobbyist groups, but instead performed by measured academics, free from bias politically or personally.

---

‘Non-Binary/Two-Spirit People are counted as detransitioners’

Screenshot from Gender GP’s Article on Detransitioners

This is nothing more than a sidestep.

The whole purpose of this paragraph is to suggest that somehow, Two-Spirit and Non-binary people are being included among the number of detransitioners.

No one is making the claim, apart from Gender-GP.

It could be, because they simply didn’t have enough information to prove their implicit bias, that they brought up this non-point, a point that no one is even discussing, in a feeble attempt to distract the leader from the clear lack of research.

This is nothing more than PR management and adds no substance to the original claim. However, would you be shocked to hear that the UK, Europe and others do not have a prevalent two-spirit community?

---

‘Accepting Transgender People Will Reduce The Detransition Population’

Screenshot of Gender-GP’s article on Detransitioners

No True Detrans

Herein lays the insidious claim that detransitioners are simply trans people forced into detransition and that the onus of control was never there, to begin with. And that our choice to acknowledge our sex, and the lies that have been sold along with false promises of gender, no longer hold sway over us.

It also underpins the rhetoric that the needs of detrans individuals are secondary, if not supplementary to trans people themselves.

Gender-GP treats detrans people as rare, freak occurrences that only exist due to variables far outside the control of the individual. This infantilises the detrans population, as nothing more than victimised trans people waiting for their moment to retransition, giving the right support, which is outrageous.

The Horse Shoe of Acceptance

In the entirety of Gender-GP’s report on detransitioners, they consistently suppose that detransition/regret is not only a rarity but that the low rates imply no further enquiry or investigation.

This very sentiment has been used against trans people of times past. It supposes that such a small minority, should not hold any sway over the majority.

It’s extremely interesting to watch this play out in real time, to be told that as a minority, we should in essence be ignored and that our stories are nothing more than collateral damage to the wider picture.

More Accepting = Less Detransitioners?

In summary, this notion lies heavily on the narrative that people detransition due to social pressure, not due to regret, health issues, change in a political view, or that transition didn’t help with dysphoria.

No, instead we’re given another spin, about how this ultimately impacts the trans person, the only group that the reader should show any concern for. I suppose, there’s not much business in detransitioners, though.

If you want fewer detransitioners, perhaps organisations that profit from gender-affirming should drastically review safeguarding procedures and stop people slipping through the net.

---

Final Thoughts

Gender-GP has produced a misleading, dangerous and incorrect account of the ‘myths surrounding detransitioners and regret’.

Rather than debunking and ‘exploding myths around Detransitioning’ (an interesting choice of title), as they set out to do, they have instead engineered and reinforced misinformation, and have made claims that will purposely mislead the group they should be caring for the most.

Trans people would be wise to understand that Webberleys are not doing this for public health or moral justice, they are motivated by wealth, and this is an extremely lucrative business for them.

It was not out of goodwill and charity they continued to operate outside of the United Kingdom, even after being struck off by the UK Medical Council, no, instead it’s the natural continuation of greed, a market they view as easy access with little consequence.

They are only worried about their business, not you, not any trans person, no one. If they objectively cared about the needs of trans/detrans people, there would be a higher focus on what they can do to help, not rushing to disprove detransitioners by making absurd links to Russian Oligarchs, using flawed studies and treating detrans people as victims of a transphobic society.