General Analysis from Partners for Ethical Care's February 2021 Survey of Desisters, Detransitioners, & Parents
Included here are the questions and aggregate responses from an informal and preliminary survey given to people who have desisted (stopped insisting they do not identify with their birth sex) and/or detransitioned (stopped attempting to change sexes and/or present one’s appearance differently than his or her birth sex), and to parents of desisters/detransitioners, during the month of February 2021.
This is a very small, non-randomized and self-selected sample of 60 people who submitted their responses with the opportunity to do so anonymously; 30 respondents provided contact information and 30 did not. (Identifying and contact information is not included with the published results.)
Results must be considered with caution, because of the small sample size, because the sample is not a random selection from the pool of desisters/detransitioners, and because of the lack of authentication and adequate demographic data on the respondents. If this survey reveals anything, it strongly suggests that more rigorous research is needed on the phenomenon of desisting/detransitioning.
Partners for Ethical Care feels confident that all 60 responses included in these results are genuine. Approximately 35 additional false responses were submitted and subsequently deleted. These malicious responses were recognized as invalid by several criteria:
The respondent commented, “I’m just here to mess up your data,”
The respondent left hateful, childish, and/or crude comments,
The respondent entered multiple, identical survey submissions, and/or
The respondent gave contradictory information, such as ticking every box in response to Question 13, “Which of the following did the parent do after the child announced a transgender identity?” including “The parent did nothing different.”
If a survey submission met any of the above criteria, it was deleted. One additional survey submission was deleted because the parent who submitted it indicated that the child had not yet desisted or detransitioned.
Unless otherwise noted, each question was answered by all 60 respondents. The percentages listed beneath some questions may or may not sum to 100%, depending upon whether the question could only be answered with a single response, or if the question included a “Check all that apply” option. Unless otherwise indicated, respondents could choose only one answer for a given question.
Respondents were able to add unique responses to certain questions, which created some difficulty in summing the percentages on those questions, as certain unique answers may have more appropriately belonged with the provided answers, or when multiple unique responses were very similar to each other.
Several survey questions provided space to give comments. Those comments can be accessed via the spreadsheet containing all survey data.
SURVEY QUESTIONS & SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
(Unless otherwise noted, results are listed according to frequency of response.)
Q1. Is the respondent a child or a parent?
Q2. What was the child's sex at birth?
0.7% Prefer Not to Say
Q3. At what age did the child announce a transgender identity?
31.7% Ages 13-15
26.7% Ages 16-18
15% Age 25+
8.3% Ages 19-21
8.3% Ages 10-12
5% Age -10
5% Ages 20-25
[NO GRAPH AVAILABLE for Q4]
Q4. In which of the following types of transition did the child participate? (Respondents could select multiple answers.)
81.7% Changed hairstyle
78.3% Made use of a binder, packer, etc., in order to pass as the opposite sex
76.7% Requested that a different name be used
75% Changed clothing style
73.3% Requested that different pronouns be used
48.3% Took cross-sex hormones
31.7% Changed hair color
25% Underwent some form of sex-characteristic surgical alteration
10% Sought some form of sex-characteristic surgical alteration, but was unable to obtain
5% Took puberty blockers
1.7% Legally changed name
Q5. If the child used puberty blockers, for how long were the puberty blockers taken? (4 responses)
50% Longer than 2 years
50% 1-2 years
Q6. If the child used wrong-sex hormones, for how long were the hormones taken? (29 responses)
62.1% Longer than 2 years
17.2% 1-2 years
13.8% 6-12 months
6.9% 3 months or less
Q7. If the child was unable to obtain a desired surgery, what was the reason? (17 responses)
52.9% could not finance the surgery
29.4% was prevented by a parent or caregiver
Q8. For approximately how long was the child transitioned (presenting with an alternate sex identity) in any way (socially or medically)?
30% 3-5 years
23.3% 1-2 years
20% 6-8 years
10% 6 months – 1 year
10% less than 6 months
6.7% more than 9 years
Q9. Where was the child FIRST introduced to gender ideology (the concept that gender is on a continuum between maleness and femaleness, and/or that people can have the mind/brain/soul of one sex and the body of another)? (Respondents could select multiple answers.)
35% social media
16.7% high school
11.7% middle school
8.3% elementary school (or earlier school)
1.7% college (or post-high school ed)
1.7% friend, then health class
1.7% both friends and social media
1.7% anime convention
1.7% friend and high school
[NO GRAPH AVAILABLE for Q10]
Q10. In which communities was the child actively encouraged and affirmed in a transgender identity? (Respondents could select multiple answers.)
85% social media groups
76.7% friend groups
28.3% extended family
25% community groups (sports, activities, etc.)
20% nuclear family (parents, siblings)
Q11. Did the parent affirm the child in a transgender identity?
18.3% did not fully affirm, but used preferred name and pronouns
Q12. Did the other parent affirm the child in a transgender identity?
21.7% did not fully affirm, but used preferred name and pronouns
10% the child does not have a relationship with the other parent
[NO GRAPH AVAILABLE for Q13]
Q13. Which of the following did the parent do after the child announced a transgender identity? (Respondents could select multiple answers.)
48.3% did nothing different
36.7% arranged for out-patient therapy/counseling
13.3% took away internet/social media
10% arranged for in-patient (residential) therapy/counseling
8.3% pulled the child and began homeschooling
5% sent the child to live with a relative
1.7% moved the child to a different school
1.7% got more involved with church
1.7% kicked the child out of the home
1.7% completely disowned the child
1.7% tried to talk the child out of the trans-ID
1.7% threw away child’s clothes and forced her to dress femininely; denied same-sex attraction
Q14. If the child saw a counselor or therapist, did the counselor or therapist affirm the transgender identity? (51 responses)
17.7% various nuanced responses
Q15. Was the child comfortable with the counselor or therapist? (48 responses)
Q16. Was the parent comfortable with the counselor or therapist? (45 responses)
26.7% parent was not involved
[NO GRAPH AVAILABLE for Q17]
Q17. What were the reasons the child desisted/detransitioned, to the best of your knowledge? (Respondents could select multiple answers.) The child
63.3% found that transition negatively affected some aspect of life.
58.3% found that transition did not help the gender dysphoria.
31.7% was convinced by social media (illogical and/or not transgender).
25% became bored with transgender ideology.
23.3% was convinced by parents (or others’) arguments.
6.7% was convinced by a faith leader (illogical and/or not transgender).
5% friends desisted/detransitioned.
5% was convinced at school.
1.7% gave the following unique response:
dug through internal misogyny
realized the consequences
stopped feeling dysphoric
lack of support for transgender ideology in daily life
a member of the opposite sex liked the child
radical feminism and self-love
found the trans community toxic and abusive
dealt with traumatic experience
realized that the trans community was controlling
investigated brain study claims and found them false
accepted self and homosexuality
diagnosed with autism
found a friend group at college
Q18. After the child desisted/detransitioned, did s/he immediately revert to presenting (clothing choices, hairstyle, etc.) the way s/he did prior to announcing a transgender identity?
25% changed, but not to prior presentation style
(Results for Questions 19-21 are ordered according to relational closeness from Very Good through Very Poor. A chart listing each respondent’s results for Questions 19-21 follows the question summaries.)
Q19. How was the child's relationship with his/her parent(s) prior to being introduced to gender ideology?
23.3% Very Good/Very Close
30% Good/Somewhat Close
20% Fair/Neither Close nor Strained
15% Poor/Somewhat Strained
11.7% Very Poor/Extremely Strained or Estranged
Q20. How was the child's relationship with his/her parent(s) during the period that the child was transgender-identified?
3.3% Very Good/Very Close
11.7% Good/Somewhat Close
21.7% Fair/Neither Close Nor Strained
40% Poor/Somewhat Strained
23.3% Very Poor/Extremely Strained or Estranged
Q21. How has the child's relationship with his/her parent(s) been since desisting/detransitioning?
30% Very Good/Very Close
26.7% Good/Somewhat Close
20% Fair/Neither Close Nor Strained
11.7% Poor/Somewhat Strained
11.7% Very Poor/Extremely Strained or Estranged
[NO GRAPH AVAILABLE for Q22]
Q22. Does the child have any diagnosed or suspected health, psychological, or neurological issues? (Respondents could select multiple answers.)
50% suicidal ideation
22.4% suicide attempt
13.8% emotional disability
8.6% mental disability
6.9% physical disability
3.4% obsessive-compulsive disorder
3.4% social anxiety
1.7% other anxiety
self-harm; eating disorder; poor self-image
Q23. To what degree does the child regret having attempted to transition sexes (to the best of your knowledge)? The child
35.6% slightly regrets.
32.2% significantly regrets.
20.3% has extreme regret.
11.9% does not regret.
The following chart captures all data from Questions 19-21, which surveyed respondents’ perceptions regarding the strength of the family relationship prior to, during, and following the child’s attempted gender transition.
The numeric values listed in the chart correspond to the respondents’ perception of familial closeness:
Very Good/Very Close = 5
Good/Somewhat Close = 4
Fair/Neither Close nor Strained = 3
Poor/Somewhat Strained = 2
Very Poor/ Extremely Strained or Estranged = 1
The chart is organized in descending order, with the highest “Relationship Prior To Attempted Transition” responses at the top. The letter “D” next to the Respondent # indicates that the response came from a desister/detransitioner; the letter “P” indicates that the response came from the parent of a desister/detransitioner.
It is compelling to note that in the majority of cases, the strength/closeness of the familial relationship dropped during the child’s attempted gender transition, but typically rose again to the same or greater level of closeness following desistance/detransition. In only four cases was the strength of the family relationship perceived to fall after desistance/detransition. It is also interesting to note that all results indicating the strength of the familial relationship prior to attempted transition as Poor (2) or Very Poor (1) came from desisters/detransitioners, rather than from parents.
However, a number of caveats to interpretation of the above data must be kept in mind:
The survey subjects were not randomly selected from among the population of all detransitioners; respondents self-selected to take this survey.
Surveys always reflect personal perception and bias, which may significantly deviate from others’ perceptions and biases, and from reality. Personal perceptions may also be a function of the respondent’s frame of mind at the particular moment the survey was taken, as opposed to reflecting a more longitudinal or general state of perception. If, for example, the respondent recently had an argument with his or her parent, that event may inspire a lower relationship-strength score than would be registered at a different moment in time.
Demographic information, such as respondents’ current age, health status, personal history, and family makeup, is not reflected in the above table.
It is unknown how many results include pairs of desister/detransitioner and parent/primary caregiver relationships. It would be interesting to compare perceptions of family relationships as perceived by both a desister/detransitioner and his or her parent(s), but that is beyond the scope of data collected by this survey.
Because the survey could be taken anonymously, and no authentication of results occurred beyond removing those that were obviously invalid (as described in the beginning of this appendix), it is possible that fabricated/false information was provided to the survey.
Again, perhaps the most important result that can be taken away from this survey is the necessity and value of more comprehensive and detailed research into the phenomenon of desistance/detransition.
(A spreadsheet containing survey data can be downloaded here.)
The information presented here will be included as an appendix to the book Desist, Detrans, & Detox: Getting Your Child Out of the Gender Cult, which Partners for Ethical Care will publish in April 2021. Please subscribe to Partners for Ethical Care's website to receive a notification when this book becomes available to purchase.
Blindsided when a child suddenly announces a transgender identity, many parents today find their families under assault by an insidious predator: the billion-dollar gender industry.
“Do you want a live son (daughter) or a dead daughter (son)?” Nearly every parent whose child has fallen into the gender industry’s clutches has heard the same emotionally manipulative threat: agree to your child’s immediate social and medical transition, or prepare for the child’s suicide. Schools, healthcare providers, politicians, and an aggressive activism machine are coercing people—and especially children—down a destructive path of medicalization in the name of transgender medicine.
Caught in the maelstrom of gender identity politics, medical experimentation, and a cultural zeitgeist that paints the family as an oppressor, parents are lied to from every quarter, and told they must consent to their children’s gender transition and medicalization. But there is a different—and saner—path. A growing cadre of parents are saying, “No,” to the gender machine’s unethical and deceptive narrative.
Based on sound principles of psychology and child development, as well as on strategies used by parents who have pulled their children back from the gender cult’s destructive ideology, Desist, Detrans, & Detox: Getting Your Child Out of the Gender Cult provides a roadmap to help families navigate the treacherous terrain of gender indoctrination, and bring their children back to reality and safety.
Partners for Ethical Care works to end the unethical medicalization of children by the gender industry. Contact Partners for Ethical Care at email@example.com.