How Academic Research on Transition Outcomes Gets Skewed

1. Recruitment Bias
Most studies recruit in queer-friendly spaces, so they naturally miss people who have left the community after detransitioning. "Personally, as someone who left the community long ago, none of these liberal studies have found me. A conservative study did." – Ok_Dog_202 source [citation:9bcf83b5-2153-4605-b7bd-de9a43e56715]

2. Self-Report Limits
Because almost all data are self-reported, hard outcomes such as mortality, hospitalization, or career progression are hidden. "All the data is just self-reports... When you do bring up hard outcomes... they usually resort to the same excuses: 'It’s transphobia’s fault'... This conveniently dismisses any hard data." – Your_socks source [citation:ae0786f1-dbde-40d9-9e0a-c485d32d0eb0]

3. Institutional Pressure
Universities and journals fear backlash if results question the affirmative narrative. "If one was willing & able to resist the tremendous forces against researching trans regret, it would be forthwith attacked & buried." – ValiMayer source [citation:22f759c7-94ab-3fb2-a357-e0dfb9987c61]

4. Documented Suppression
There are concrete examples of studies being blocked or buried. "It very much sounds like research is getting blocked or buried" – MeninAeido source [citation:0c4dcfef-5bfa-4f2e-b138-cce1133171b3]

5. Follow-Up Failures
Researchers often stop tracking non-responders, so people who regret transition disappear from the data. "How many of them fail to check up with the people that felt betrayed by the whole system?" – AionNefelibata source [citation:5b9643ce-3658-4954-97c0-86b0dac718b9]

Take-away
Detransitioners say the current research landscape is tilted: studies recruit from pro-transition spaces, rely on self-reports, avoid hard outcomes, and face institutional pressure to publish only positive findings. Recognizing these blind spots can help anyone questioning their gender to seek a fuller picture—one that includes hard data, diverse voices, and non-medical paths to well-being.