Yes, it did. When this research was first launched as an anonymous survey, individuals did try to sabotage it by completing surveys when they were not detransitioners/desisters. The project was then changed and re-launched. In the new version, anyone who is interested needs to go through a screening interview by videoconference (with me) before having access to the survey. It has been going well since then. Recruitment will be open for about one more week.

Hi-- thanks so much for writing to me and sharing your thoughts. This research article comes from a project where participants were recruited in 2016 and 2017. It didn't include the videoconference screening. There is a more recent, not published yet, project (recruited in 2020) that did have the sabotage attempt and the videoconference call screening. Don't worry, those aspects are definitely described in that article. So the article that was published yesterday was anonymous, like the United States Trans Survey, which means that there was not verification.

Yes, I've seen what Ky Schevers is posting. It's ok. I tried to explore a lot of different transition and detransition experiences to broaden our understanding about the topic. There were 115 questions in the survey and a couple of them explored the ROGD phenomenon. Since there isn't much data about it yet, I thought it was prudent to explore it with a few questions. I also tried to include questions that had options that covered a lot of possibilities (including discrimination, including financial concerns, including medical complication, including dissatisfaction with effects of transition). I think that there is so little research about people who are detransitioning in current times, that it's important to ask these questions.

Thanks again for letting me know what you think. Best, -Lisa

Thanks for your interest. The study is not funded and the focus of the study is listed on the flyer (under the blue box).

Regarding people trying to game the survey by lying-- that is something that needs to be thought of in many types of studies. However, for this study, the face-to-face (video) interview helps to lessen this risk over having it be completely online. There is no requirement of proof of being on medication as is the case in many of the studies on transgender health (such as the US Transgender Survey) that are not done through a medical clinic.

I hope this has answered your questions. Best wishes,

Lisa

Thanks so much! My goal is to try to make the studies open access so that they are available without cost to anyone who wants to read them. I will announce new publications on my website (LittmanResearch.com). Though maybe I should also write a post here on r /detrans whenever articles are published..?

Thanks for bringing this up. Anonymous studies are very common. They have the benefit of protecting the privacy of participants but also have issues regarding whether you can verify who they are. Several of the studies highly praised by individuals who subscribe to a pre-quick-transition philosophy have collected data anonymously. See the United States Trans Survey (USTS) and the associated articles. I mention this because there has been a tendency for people to be fine with methods if the research supports their views and very critical of the methods if the findings challenge their views. So I try to make sure that I discuss these topics in the context to research on different sides of the issue.

My study recruited in 2016-2017 and the USTS recruited in 2015. I was not aware of any concerted efforts to sabotage my study (though for my study in 2020, there was) or the USTS. I did read through every survey looking for evidence of "mischievous responders" and found one survey with nonsense answers, so it was excluded from analysis. The issue of detransition was far less political then because there was very little visibility. So, I would consider the risk of bad actors to be similar to the risk of bad actors in the USTS. (My next study, recruited in 2020, uses videoconference screening of all participants as there was a concerted effort to sabotage the study)

Most of the research in this area has drawn participants from communities likely to have similar views. The USTS recruited from LGBT advocacy organizations so people who are politically engaged in this way may be likely to have similar views about transition as an intervention. The social transitioning of children studies recruit from gender expansive camps and conferences about transition-- so these families are likely to share views that social transition will hep their child. My ROGD study first reached out to support groups where parents were concerned about medical transition-- so views might be similar, though recruitment info (through snowball sampling) also reached a very pro-transitioning parent group. My current study is unique in the field because we reached out to groups from the start that were likely to hold different views about transition to reduce the type of bias that exists from just one type of community. I have not seen this before in the field. So in addition to private detransition groups, I also reached out to WPATH and the APA listservs (which you could categorize as being very pro-transition). And on social media, my moderators reached out to subreddits that were very pro-transition (though the subreddits may have removed them rather quickly). So, regarding the issue of bias, the current research addresses this more than other studies even tried to.

So, in summary, this research should have similar strengths and weaknesses of other studies using anonymous data collection, like the USTS. And it should have fewer issues around the biases of recruiting from communities with similar views because we reached out to communities likely to disagree. So it is better in this regard than the USTS. The health of detransitioners is a serious topic and deserves to be taken seriously. Thanks for reaching out to me. Best, -Lisa

The Desisters & Detransitioners Study is still open and seeking volunteers. See flyer for details. Please share. https://c9281558-bf70-403c-912d-e9ffccc27472.filesusr.com/ugd/dfb146_d34b250e4abe41118277ce769190d419.pdf

Regarding desisters (individuals who are no longer transgender-identified without medical intervention) vs detransitioners (people who transitioned with medication or surgery and then detransitioned by stopping medication or having surgery to reverse the changes from transition)--- it will be carefully defined and described in the studies. Thanks again for your interest and questions!

Thanks for asking. One of the criteria for the study is having identified as transgender for 6 months or more. (And for the purpose of the research, transgender is defined as any gender identification that is different from someone's natal sex (sex at birth) - so this includes non-binary, gender fluid, enby.) If you have any other questions or want to discuss further, feel free to email me. Thanks! -Lisa

Thanks for sharing your experience with Thundermist. I am in RI though I am no longer at Brown. I've interacted with a few clinicians from Thundermist in academic seminars. The ones I have spoken with are very enthusiastically pro-transition. I can say with certainty that they do not like my research (several have written and signed a formal letter to that effect). I am sorry to hear about your experience with them. I'm not sure how to officially look into such things but I can try to gather information. I believe one thing is that patients and former patients of providers can submit complaints to the state medical board. Though you would need to use your name for that and I don't know if that would be a problem. Would you like to speak offline to discuss further? Send me a chat and I'll give you my email address.

I'm sorry to hear that. I know that there is another study running now that is seeking input from detransitioners from all countries and (I believe) all ages. Have you seen this?

https://rethinkime.org/index.php/detransitioner-needs-survey/