This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies B‑class Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Psychiatry B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshtillmord. Peer reviewers: Emv1997, SuzySchaffer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chele1169.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

The leading trans youth researcher at Princeton, Kristina Olson, follows a prospective cohort of 300 self-identifying trans youth. She just published her most recent findings in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics here. Her main finding is that 94% of her cohort still identified as trans 5 years later.

This directly contradicts the title sentence in this topic.

Beyond that, the citations coming in support of that assertion in this page (2,3,4) are not citations of original research. The links lead to text books, which point to further papers that are not available in the links. Shouldn't such a strong assertion be supported by equally strong references?

Thoughts?

PS: I am new to Wikipedia editing, apologies if I'm missing a few etiquette points :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfrombkln (talk • contribs)

I skimmed through the article, and I would say go for it if you want to fix it yourself. I agree that it should have stronger references, but I didn't look too far into it. You would know more than I do right now about the citations. Additionally those text books would be outdated, they are from 2013 and 2014. Sign with ~~~~ to put in your signature, which will let others message you directly and put the date in. --Roundish ⋆tc) 20:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A study vs. multiple reviews and sources a tier or two above WP:PRIMARY? Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't endorse "citations of original research". It even has a WP:Original research policy. The norm for sourcing information like this is the WP:MEDRS page. This same information is in the transgender youth and detransition articles with newer sources supporting it and critical comments on it. A few of those sources are also in this article, along with the critical comments. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 01:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbfrombkln: as SangdXurWan said, WP:PRIMARY and especially WP:MEDRS apply here. Do not use the one study you found, regardless whether it contradicts the lead or not. For in-depth discussion about this, you could ask at WT:MED. And welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to assume that the high desistance rates from the earlier studies are not going to be replicated in the future, and that the studies currently ongoing, with much tighter definitions and more appropriate methodologies, will continue to see much lower desistance rates. We just need MEDRS review articles to publish this conclusion I just made before it can be included in wikivoice.

I would point out, though, Mathglot, that WP:MEDPRI does allow the inclusion of primary research in articles, and gives guidance on the same - If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study: - and then gives an example of how to attribute such findings. It seems to me that the much lower desistence rates being found in the high-quality studies currently ongoing in the US, Canada and elsewhere are very much analogous to large randomized clinical trials with surprising results and are therefore potentially DUE for attributed inclusion as MEDPRI allows. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to assume that the high desistance rates from the earlier studies are not going to be replicated in the future - no, assumptions either way are not safe. We want to wait for new WP:MEDRS secondary sources first - we cite reviews, we don't write them. This isn't the same thing as a large RCT either. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno @Crossroads:. Per the concurrent discussion at Talk:Detransition#"As gender-nonconforming children without gender dysphoria were included in studies", we do now have multiple papers showing a huge disparity between the older studies and the new. The older papers show a desistance rate between 61-98%, whereas all of the newer ones show it between 0.09-6.9%. This new paper by Olson does not seem out of the ordinary compared to other contemporary literature on this topic. Now while you are correct in saying that we don't write the reviews, I do believe we are now in the safe to assume that any upcoming reviews will make note of this huge disparity between the older and current literature.

Also in lieu of an upcoming review paper, @Newimpartial: is correct in that we can include papers, such as those by Olson, Davies et al*, Clarke & Spiliadis*, and Hall* here, as they do represent contemporary research and the reported rates are definitely noteworthy due to their significant departure from older literature on this topic.

*See Detransition#Occurrence for the citations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Jdbrook added much of the content about this at the detransition page. The editor also added related content to additional articles. They seem to have a good understanding of the research, and could probably be helpful here. I agree with others to do what WP:MEDRS says and to rely on reviews rather than the primary research findings. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do what WP:MEDRS says or to rely on reviews rather than the primary research findings? MEDRS does not necessarily mandate us to ignore primary research findings. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinnyshivers: hi--thanks for the ping.

The different studies are studying different interventions (and have a few other differences).

1.Many of the earlier studies with the 61%-98% desistance rates (and the later analysis of one of the larger groups, where subthreshold and threshold gender dysphoria were tracked separately) did watchful waiting (no social transition).

(Not all--some of the studies in the review had some socially transitioned kids, those studies noted a correlation with social transition and persistence, see below.)

2. There are also studies of young people put on puberty blockers, where one finds that most of those kids persist (e.g., here and here).

3. This study is talking about 5 year outcomes after social transition, except that it also includes a bunch of kids with puberty blockers and hormones by the end. So it's a combination of social transition only outcomes and puberty blockers outcomes and hormones outcomes. Since the desistance rates are so low of the people who are tracked through the end, at least through the ages in this study, maybe it's not a big deal to separate them out, I have no idea. It's plausible some might desist as they get to the ages some of the other desistance studies tracked through, but one can't really say anything from this study one way or another. Also, to participate I think they already had to be socially transitioned for a while (1 1/2 years maybe), so those who stopped in that time frame weren't included.

It is also true that in some of the studies with the 61%-98% desistance rates some of the kids were socially transitioned and it was seen that those were more likely to persist, but I am not sure if those were separated out clearly. There is discussion of a lot of this here.

So this study says nothing about what happens to kids who aren't socially transitioned, which is what many of the earlier studies looked it. It seems to say many kids who are socially transitioned stay that way for a while. It is unclear what the criteria were for inclusion, and I'm not sure about loss to follow up.

Again, in the different studies, different interventions are being studied (and for different time periods). 1-watchful waiting, mostly no social transition, 2- puberty blockers, 3- social transition, ~1/3 puberty blockers, ~1/3 hormones. The last two look like they tend to persist for the respective time frames, the first, to desist.

A recent review article that came out before this study, but which seems prescient now, noted that one might need explicit informed consent to start social transition as a result:

Informed consent for social transition represents a gray area. Evidence suggests that social transition is associated with the persistence of gender dysphoria (Hembree et al., 2017; Steensma, McGuire, Kreukels, Beekman, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). This suggests that social gender transition is a form of a psychological intervention with potential lasting effects (Zucker, 2020). While the causality has not been proven, the possibility of iatrogenesis and the resulting exposure to the risks of future medical and surgical gender dysphoria treatments, qualifies social gender transition for explicit, rather than implied, consent.

That is, it seems this study is saying something about how social transition affects the likelihood of desistance, not desistance in general.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]