“Providers had no idea what to do with me”: A mixed-methods analysis of detransition/retransition support, care, and information needs among sexual and gender minority individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Detransition refers to stopping, shifting, or reversal of an initial gender transition. Some people detransition temporarily, and later re-start a transition process, or retransition. Despite calls for research and care surrounding detransition/retransition, these experiences remain poorly understood by care providers and LGBTQ2S+ community-serving organizations.Methods Between December 2023-April 2024, a cross-sectional survey was administered to 957 individuals (aged 16 and older) living in the US or Canada who self-identified with experiences of detransition. Participants were recruited via advertisements across eight major social media platforms, direct emails sent to ∼1200 former research participants, and to >615 LGBTQ2S+ organizations and gender-affirming care providers. Mixed qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed regarding participants’ experiences and care needs during detransition and, if relevant, retransition. Data about care experiences and needs were analyzed descriptively using frequencies and percentages. Interpretive description was utilized to analyze qualitative responses.Results Participants reported a wide range of current gender identities/expressions such as: woman (n = 386; 40.3%); gender nonconforming woman (n = 241; 25.2%); nonbinary (n = 238; 24.9%); and/or detrans woman; (n = 152; 22.5%). A majority of the sample were sexual minorities. A majority reported being bisexual (n = 429; 44.8%), queer (n = 277; 28.9%), and/or lesbian (n = 254; 26.5%). Qualitative analysis identified three key themes: (1) accessing detransition-related care needs within the gender-affirming care system; (2) detransition-related social/legal needs to navigate a second transition; and (3) detransition preventative and retransition needs. Each of these themes encompassed four subthemes, including access to detrans-knowledgeable care providers (n = 162; 28.8%); medical information (n = 62; 11.0%); mental healthcare and supports (n = 92; 16.3%); interpersonal supports (n = 124; 22.0%); and community supports (n = 163; 29.0%).Conclusion Greater understanding and community-led care relating to detransition/retransition from an LGBTQ2S+-affirming lens can help to mitigate minority stressors and distress associated with these experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".