The Genderwoo Activists Are Changing Their Story On Detransition Now

As if they are expecting a wave of detransitioners, or something

Laura Becker

Dr. Kinnon R. MacKinnon, a transgender scholar studying transgender “care” at York University in Toronto, has admitted in a New York Times op-ed that detransition rates are much higher than the oft-quoted figure of one percent.

MacKinnon professes to be personally focused on the reasons why people detransition. In what the good doctor says is the largest-ever such study, the real problem is revealed to be “involuntary detransition,” when someone’s ‘gender journey’ is “interrupted” by social disapproval.

“We found that many people detransition not out of regret, but because they feel forced by societal factors like negative attitudes toward transgender people, attitudes that are being amplified by the Trump administration,” MacKinnon asserts.

MacKinnon and the New York Times might as well just admit that the trendyness of ‘trans’ is gone, that people are sad at their lost investment of life and health to a cult of patent medical fraud.

But they cannot admit this, for they are still too invested in the idea that chasing the gender dragon is inherently good. Inscribing politics on the human body, even a child’s body, is assumed in advance to be a morally virtuous pursuit.

Still: detransitioners are here, their numbers are growing, and even the apologists for genderwoo can see it happening.

“We found that many people detransition not out of regret, but because they feel forced by societal factors like negative attitudes toward transgender people, attitudes that are being amplified by the Trump administration,” the op-ed whines.

Never mind all the men in women’s prisons, sports, and spaces, or the damage society can clearly see with their eyeballs as people put themselves into states of iatrogenic harm hoping to mimic the opposite sex.

“Negative attitudes towards trangender people” sweeps away anyone who can see Lia Thomas with their eyeballs. It elides anyone who has watched an episode of Jazz Jennings with their eyeballs. It presumes away all the once-sympathetic responses that have jaundiced with time and exposure to ‘trans rights’ in person.

“Restrictions on gender-affirming care have also caused many people to stop or reverse their desired transitions, creating the type of involuntary detransition found in my own research,” MacKinnon writes.

Yes, this was the point of passing bans on the Skoptsy cult sterilizing kids with genderwoo, was to make them stop. What was your point?

“The administration’s actions, including a ban on trans people in the military, indicate not just concern about pediatric care or medical regret, but a wholesale rejection of trans and nonbinary people.” Never mind questions of military readiness, that is, whether a whole infantry platoon is affected by their medic trooning out.

In combat, or sports, or human puberty, what matters most is how every individual person wishes others to perceive them, according to genderwoo.

MacKinnon complains of “mounting resistance to gender diversity in society.” A generation of young people was told, falsely, that the whole world would change to welcome them in their heavenly new bodies.

Utopia failed because it could never work. Trump is now president, supreme courts are ruling sensibly, and the project of deranging the whole of society to accommodate this new class of person has come to a crashing halt. Someone must take the blame for the failure of gender communist utopia, however.

MacKinnon wants to divide the detransitioners into four different camps. “One group, 29 percent of our respondents, detransitioned primarily because of external factors, such as lack of familial support, feeling discriminated against or an inability to get the treatment they need.”

Those are three very different reasons to detransition, but why not tuck them into single category anyway? Especially one that is politically advantageous, and that retains the myth of gender ‘medicine’ benefitting anyone.

“A second group, representing about 20 percent of respondents, cited changing gender identity, but generally did not feel regret about their earlier transition.” Instead, these people “ultimately evolved in their identity and gender expression.”

This second grouping of people are no longer even regular humans, they are transqueer humans, a new class of being for which gender medicine is beneficial and necessary a priori.

“A third, similarly sized, group cited external factors like discrimination, as well as mental health challenges and changes in identity motivating their detransition,” MacKinnon says. This cohort, about 18 percent, shows “moderate regret.”

Critics of gender affirmation have been talking about comorbid mental health issues and identity changes for ages, so it is nice to see them acknowledged, even in this pseudoscientific categorization.

Finally, the fourth group, “33 percent of participants, said they detransitioned because of an identity change, mental health-related factors and dissatisfaction with treatment.”

Wait, how did ‘identity changes’ end up split into three categories? How did regret get neatly sliced into two smaller increments? Why aren’t categories subdivided by the level of medicalization?

Is anyone at the New York Times actually reading these op-ed submissions from genderwoo apologists prior to publication? What sort of etiology is supposed to flow from these supposed findings? What kind of treatment plan?

MacKinnon’s true purpose becomes starkly clear in the fourth category. This group “were much more likely to express strong regret with the decision to transition,” MacKinnon says. It is the category of the politically-inconvenient. The ‘spectrum’ of detransition being constructed here is entirely political.

Indeed, MacKinnon acknowledges just how inconvenient this cohort of detransitioners is to the politics of genderwoo. “Some felt that they had not been adequately informed about the risks of medical treatments. It’s this group whose experiences have become central to policy debates around pediatric gender-affirming health care in the United States and abroad.”

MacKinnon writes that “my research team heard from many people whose stories were not all that different from the speakers at the F.T.C. panel. They felt let down by treatments, sometimes terribly so.”

The Distance covered that Federal Trade Commission workshop in July. “Let down” does not begin to describe the patent fraud and extortion committed in the name of ‘gender identity’.

‘Identity changes’ is another convenience to MacKinnon, which is why it has been split between categories. “For decades, trans medicine has operated under the assumption that gender identity was fixed from childhood and that the goal of gender-affirming care is to align a person’s body with a deeply felt internal sense of gender,” MacKinnon explains.

“Transitioning was a one-way street, often ending with surgery. But many recent studies, including my own, show that gender identity for some youth can evolve.”

Remember when we had to socially transition toddlers because they ‘know who they are’? Remember the time we canceled you and got you fired from your job and set CPS after your family because you said this was wrong?

Turns out that now, minor children “experience gender flexibly”, whatever the hell that means. Sorry about all the inflexibly-permanent iatrogenic harms. We couldn’t make a gender omelette without breaking a few eggs. Bon voyage on your gender journey, kids!

MacKinnon wants “medical providers to take detransition seriously, to learn more about how to support people with these experiences.” It is true that providers are utterly clueless with detransitioners.

This systemic ignorance starts with the absence of insurance codes for detransition medicine and the simple fact that clinicians do not want to face up to the consequences of their actions.

It is sustained as policy through intense activist opposition to changes that would benefit detransitioners, such as the establishment of insurance codes, and the continued capture of policy-making committees in professional organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics or the Endocrine Society.

But MacKinnon does not have specific policy proposals that would help detransitoners because that is not the primary concern of her op-ed.

Her primary concern, being a he/him, is that although at least half the detransitioners in her study do in fact regret their transition, this should not stop anyone else, even a child, from getting what they want.

“Nothing in my team’s research, or any other studies on detransition, should lead to the conclusion that policymakers ought to issue blanket bans on gender-affirming care, or that health care providers should ever try to change a person’s gender identity or expression by engaging in so-called conversion therapy,” MacKinnon writes.

Ah, yes, ‘conversion therapy’. A clinician using female pronouns for MacKinnon would indeed be deemed ‘conversion therapy’ in today’s Canada, and she likes it that way. She doesn’t want things to change.

Too bad change is coming.

Detransition research has generally found that transition regret follows roughly a decade after surgical alteration, 8-11 years. Detransitioners who only use hormones require separate group therapy sessions from surgical detransitioners, and all groups must be split by sex difference.

Dr. Kinnon R. MacKinnon is a social scientist. Her op-ed in the New York Times is not aimed at hard scientific or medical understanding of detransitioners, nor does it seem inspired by compassion for detransitioners. It is an attempt to control the narrative as the detransition cohort grows beyond the power of genderwoo activists to conceal.

Early studies did not focus on detransition, had low rates of follow-up with patients, and consequently reported regret rates as low as one percent. Genderwoo activists and apologists have routinely cited this number to deny that detransitioners exist, but that claim is no longer tenable.

Now MacKinnon admits that more recent studies have found rates might be as high “5 percent to 10 percent,” which is still going to be a lowball estimate. But let’s take this admission as a starting point, anyway.

Imagine a car that has 10 percent regret rates among buyers. How long would this brand of automobile last? The basic problem for ‘gender medicine’ is that it creates new detransitioners, some number of whom will be angry about their experience, which includes being extensively gaslit about their own existence.

Having heard from hundreds of detransitioners myself, I can suggest a far easier categorization for MacKinnon. Every story I have heard is different in some way from all the others, except for the one detail they all share: a false belief they were ‘born in the wrong body’ and that this dissonance could be fixed by medical science.

For whatever reason, arriving by whatever road, detransitioners all fit the single category of people giving up on the lie that human sex change is even possible. That’s it. That’s the entire category, politics and all, which is what makes the detransitioners so dangerous to the politics of genderwoo. They prove it is just woo woo.

Imagine someone who is still in the cult of Scientology being platformed to say what people who leave Scientology think about it. The New York Times should try publishing the views of detransitioners themselves instead of giving trans ‘rights’ activists with soft science degrees a platform to speak on their behalf.