Introduction

Terminology note

Detransition refers to the process by which individuals who have previously transitioned to a gender different from the one typically associated with their sex recorded at birth later return to identifying with their birth-recorded sex and/or the gender role traditionally linked to it. While detransitioning can also involve a shift to a nonbinary gender, this article focuses specifically on those detransitioning to a cisgender identity, in pursuit of clarity. These individuals are referred to as “detransitioners”, “detransitioning individuals”, or simply as individuals or people who have detransitioned. The terminology used has been carefully selected in consultation with members of the LGBTQIA+ community, particularly a transgender queer researcher on the research team who writes on similar topics and with reference to existing research in the area. For example, Vandenbussche (2021) presents qualitative accounts in which individuals self-identify using the term “detransitioner,” highlighting the term’s use within relevant communities. However, it is important to acknowledge that language preferences vary. A recent Australian report by Transcend Australia (2024) recommends the terminology “re-identifying with birth-registered sex” as a more neutral alternative. While this phrasing is acknowledged and valued, the present study will use the above language for consistency and clarity, particularly given its use in existing literature and by individuals with lived experience. The meaning of gender in this thesis refers primarily to gender identity, unless otherwise specified. As with many constructs in this field, the understanding and categorisation of these identities continues to evolve, reflecting broader societal changes in the recognition and validation of transgender and detransitioning experiences (Lee & Rosenthal, 2023).

In recent years, the experiences of those detransitioning from a transgender identity have garnered media attention in Australia, sparking discussions about gender identity and transitions. Some narratives have raised concerns within the queer community, as detransition experiences are sometimes framed in ways that challenge gender-affirming care, leading to fears that these accounts may be used to undermine support for transgender individuals (Mackinnon et al., 2023). Nevertheless, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on how the Australian public perceives detransitioning, leaving a significant and important gap in knowledge. This study seeks to explore these attitudes in the Australian context.

Gender, distinct from biological sex, is widely understood as both a socially and culturally constructed concept and a deeply personal aspect of identity (Veldhuis et al., 2024). While societal norms shape the roles and expectations associated with gender, individuals also experience and refine their gender in ways that are personally meaningful (Lee & Rosenthal, 2023). Among the diverse gender identities are transgender identities, which refer to individuals whose self-identified gender differs from the one typically assigned or assumed at birth based in their birth-recorded sex (Buck, 2016). For example, a person recorded as male at birth based on observable anatomy may later identify as a woman or as nonbinary. Definitions of “transgender” differ depending on the context in which it is used, with the most significant comparison seen between research applications and general community use. From a research perspective, the term is often reserved for people transitioning within the binary of male or female. However, general community members may use “transgender” to also encompass nonbinary and genderqueer identities, reflecting a greater understanding of the nuances of gender diversity (Anderson, 2023).

Defining detransitioning

While transgender individuals pursue a variety of medical and/or social steps to transition, some people subsequently reverse this process and undergo a gender detransition. Definitions of detransitioning vary; however, most studies define it as involving a cessation of hormonal interventions or the reversal of surgical modifications (Jorgensen, 2023). Like definitions of “transgender”, this is not necessarily a consensually agreed upon definition and may vary depending on context. From a community perspective, much like how being transgender does not require medical transition, detransitioning persons can for example, detransition only socially, such as by changing their name, pronouns, or outward presentation, including clothing choices. Detransitioners may then return to identifying as their birth-assigned gender, adopt a nonbinary identity, and do often continue to identify as members of the transgender community (Littman, 2021; Sanders et al., 2023).

Negative attitudes and transphobia

Although the focus of this study is on individuals who detransition, it is important to first consider the broader societal context in which attitudes toward gender diversity are formed, including widespread stigma and misunderstanding of transgender identities. These same dynamics may also shape public perceptions of those who detransition, particularly when detransitioning is misunderstood as evidence against transgender identities (Gelly et al., 2025, MacKinnon et al., 2022a).

Research into gender-diverse identities has grown over time, with increasing calls for a focus on the strengths, resilience, and prosperous lives of transgender individuals. Ideally, such research would promote the visibility and celebration of gender diversity, shifting societal attitudes toward greater acceptance. However, much of the current literature still highlights the significant challenges and stigma faced by transgender individuals, emphasising the need for continued efforts to address these pervasive issues (Perez-Arche & Miller, 2021). Negative perceptions refer to a range of attitudes, including confusion, hostility, and political opposition towards transgender people (Puckett et al., 2023). These perceptions may not always stem from a deep-seated hatred or aversion (i.e. transphobia) but may still contribute to discrimination against transgender people. Understanding these negative perceptions, regardless of their origins, is crucial, as they play a significant role in shaping the experiences of transgender people and the societal responses they face. This distinction highlights the importance of examining a broad range of attitudes, beyond overt transphobia, to better address the nuanced challenges within the broader social context.

Highlighting the gap: gender detransitioning

Research exploring the health and wellbeing determinants of sexual and gender minority communities highlights that discrimination and social rejection by the general community are serious risk factors for a myriad of adverse outcomes, including mental ill-health, unemployment, homelessness, and illness and disability (Lefevor et al., 2019; 2016; Safer et al., 2016; White Hughto et al., 2015). For example, Copp and Koehler (2017) conducted research investigating peer attitudes towards university students who identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex or Asexual (LGBTQIA + ). From a sample of 416 undergraduate students, they discovered that attitudes towards transgender individuals were less favourable compared to those towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people, suggesting a potential disparity in how gender minorities and sexual minorities are perceived (Copp & Koehler, 2017). This is not an uncommon finding in research on transgender communities, and, in response, there has been a significant and commendable body of research focused on the experiences and needs of transgender people. However, comparatively less is known about individuals who have detransitioned, despite their unique experiences and potential vulnerability to stigma and marginalisation.

Social role theory

One approach to explaining the underlying cause of stigma and discrimination toward gender minority individuals is the Social Role Theory. Social Role Theory offers a valuable framework for understanding how societal expectations and roles influence perceptions, providing a lens through which we can interpret these attitudinal outcomes. This theory posits that societal expectations and roles assigned to people based on their sex or gender significantly influence societal attitudes and behaviours (Eagly & Wood, 2011). When applied to transgender individuals, it is theorised that societal perceptions are often shaped by how well a person’s gender expression aligns with established gender norms. Transgender individuals can be viewed through the lens of these norms, with acceptance or rejection and the accompanying behaviour often hinging on how their performative identity conforms to and then is perceived in the context of societal expectations (Butler, 2004). People who have detransitioned may further challenge these societal norms in unique ways. To a public often unaware of the nuances within the LGBTQIA+ community, detransitioning may be viewed positively as a return to conventional gender norms. However, detransitioning is often met with negative attitudes, partly due to the perception that it challenges the popularised view of gender identity as stable and innate. While trans theory widely recognises the fluidity of gender, some advocacy narratives present gender identity as fixed and essential—often as a strategic simplification to resist delegitimisation. It is this oversimplified framing, rather than the theory itself, that detransitioning is sometimes seen to disrupt (Nagoshi et al., 2008; Tebbe & Moradi, 2012). In other cases, negative reactions may stem from the perception that detransitioning reflects psychological confusion or instability, such as the belief that the individual is indecisive (Vandenbussche, 2021). This pathologising narrative is itself a form of stigma and highlights another way in which detransitioning individuals are marginalised.

Additionally, research on attitudes toward gender minorities often demonstrate evidence to suggest that those who hold more traditional understandings of gender, are more likely to exhibit prejudice toward gender minority communities (Greenburg & Gaia, 2019). The trajectory of these attitudes, whether they trend towards acceptance or rejection, remains uncertain, underscoring the importance of further exploration in understanding broader societal beliefs.

Existing research: societal attitudes towards transgender individuals

While the majority of current studies focus primarily on attitudes towards transgender individuals, understanding the basic themes and elements of this research is important to better inform the current investigation into attitudes towards detransitioning individuals. This information will help guide the present study by offering insight into potential societal drivers of perceptions, which can be used to shape more targeted interventions and analyses regarding attitudes toward detransitioning individuals.

Age

Commonly, older people demonstrate more prejudice towards groups of gender and sexual minorities, including transgender people (Flores, 2015; Landén & Innala, 2002). Studies that demonstrate the opposite (i.e. older individuals demonstrating more positive attitudes) have been conducted on more restricted samples, where the age range is less varied. For example, Copp and Koehler (2017) found that attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ people positively correlate with age (i.e. older students were more likely to have positive attitudes). However, the disproportionate education level within this sample may have been a particularly influential factor in the results, potentially limiting the generalisability of the findings.

Sex

Research consistently shows sex-based differences in attitudes towards transgender individuals, with women generally expressing more positive views than men. For example, Antoszewski et al. (2007) questioned college students on their level of tolerance and acceptance of transgender individuals. Sixty-two per cent indicated they could befriend someone identifying as transgender, with female respondents being moderately more accepting than male respondents (Antoszewski et al., 2007). Furthermore, while the majority of the sample was in favour of allowing transgender individuals to change their names legally and undergo hormonal and surgical treatments, females were significantly more likely to be accepting of these behaviours (Antoszewski et al., 2007). These findings are echoed across international contexts, with studies showing that female participants tend to hold more supportive attitudes and greater openness towards transgender individuals than male participants (Copp & Koehler, 2017; Norton & Herek, 2013; Worthen, 2012).

Sexuality

Reiterating the importance of researching attitudes towards people who have detransitioned, Vandenbussche (2021) provided an in-depth analysis of the experiences of 237 people who had detransitioned. Notably, the article aimed to illuminate the medical and psychological needs of the participants and ultimately highlight the potential repercussions faced by someone who decides to undergo the detransitioning process. Predominantly, participants recall experiencing a drastic decline in support throughout the detransitioning process compared to the initial transition. Not only did this include negative experiences with medical professionals, but surprisingly, 34% of detransitioning participants recalled being ostracised from the LGBTQIA+ community and were shunned because of, potentially, the LGBTQIA+ community’s opposition to gender detransitions as they are weaponised against the community.

This experience is not particularly unique, with participants from other studies recalling a similar loss of support and sense of belonging from the LGBTQIA+ community post- detransition (Littman, 2021; Mackinnon et al., 2022a; Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2023). This raises an interesting paradox within the broader context of attitudes towards detransitioning in the LGBTQIA+ community. While evidence has suggested that the LGBTQIA+ community tend to be more accepting of transgender individuals, likely due to a sense of shared adversity, experiences shared by Vandenbussche (2021) suggest that the acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community may not extend to detransitioning individuals. These findings suggest that identifying as part of the LGBTQIA+ community may act as a predictor for less accepting attitudes toward those detransitioning.

Interpersonal contact

Contributing to this body of research into the various attitudes towards transgender people, Kanamori and Cornelius-White (2017) conducted a study to determine which variables had the most significant impact on attitudes towards the transgender community. The sample consisted of counsellors and counsellors in training. While attitudes were generally positive, having higher personal familiarity with transgender individuals was associated with holding more favourable perspectives. Despite this, professional experience and exposure working with transgender people predicted lower comfort interacting with transgender clients and lower perception of transgender clients’ worth as a person.

This unexpected exposure-discomfort finding is in stark contrast to the findings by Nisley (2010), who found that having work experience with transgender clients was significantly associated with more favourable perspectives. This finding is reinforced by King et al. (2009) who discovered that interpersonal contact significantly reduces transprejudice in a sample of Hong Kong Chinese individuals. These contradictions support findings by Regnerus & Vermurlen (2022), who determined that the “intergroup contact hypothesis” (i.e. whether interpersonal contact with transgender people may lead to more accepting attitudes) has received varied support across the body of literature. The varied results may be a product of the varying contexts in which individuals interact with transgender people. That is, rather than simply contact itself, the types of experiences people have with gender diverse individuals may be more important for forming attitudes (e.g., if someone has a negative experience, that may transcend to poorer attitudes).

Religiosity and gender role beliefs

Other beliefs are predictors of negative attitudes towards transgender identities, such as religiosity and gender role beliefs. Greenburg and Gaia (2019) found a connection between religiosity and endorsing more traditional gender role beliefs, with those measuring higher in religiosity (i.e. the extent to which religion influences beliefs and attitudes) exhibiting higher levels of transphobia. These contradicting belief constructs may be directly connected as many religious teachings promote traditional views of the gender binary and reinforce distinct gender expectations regarding responsibilities in the family unit and society (Kanamori et al., 2019). As such, it may be that detransitioning individuals also challenge these gender norms rooted in religion and are more negatively perceived by those who strongly value these traditional beliefs (Campbell et al., 2019; Eliason et al., 2017).

Economic beliefs

A factor unique in the consideration of attitudes toward gender diversity, is the financial consequences for those medically transitioning or detransitioning which is typically not a part of the narrative for other sexually diverse groups. Of particular relevance to Australians is the uniqueness of the Medicare system: taxpayers’ money funds most healthcare. This means the public may have a vested interest in how funds are allocated and may disagree with spending decisions that do not directly benefit them (Khatri & Assefa, 2023). For example, Antoszewski et al. (2007) and Landén & Innala (2000) asked respondents the extent to which they agree with hormonal or surgical interventions for transgender people being funded by taxpayer contributions. Over sixty per cent of participants believed that health insurance and taxpayer contributions should not be used to cover the cost of gender-affirming medical procedures. Given that the majority of respondents were against the funding of hormonal or surgical treatments, it is further posited that transgender individuals and their needs may not be a priority for the general population, and this may exacerbate the existing inequalities that they experience (Antoszewski et al., 2007).

This introduces the potential socioeconomic implications of transition on attitudes towards this group, which may be further complicated when understanding attitudes toward those detransitioning. For example, people who hold prejudice toward those detransitioning may feel justified in their position, for the sake of their assumed economic pressures of the detransitioning process. However, depending on how this issue is framed, those who seek a detransition may be seen as either positive, by ceasing Medicare fund use or unfavourable, as using even more funds to transition a second time. This situation underscores a significant conflict; whether to invest in gender-affirming procedures for transgender individuals or continue to restrict access, thereby perpetuating the mental health crisis and its associated economic burdens for transgender and detransitioning communities (Baker & Restar, 2022; dickey & Budge, 2020), highlighting a need to further explore how this factor may interact with people’s perceptions of the detransitioning community.

Knowledge

Knowledge about transgender people and their experiences shapes attitudes (Antoszewski et al., 2007). Research shows that individuals who possess greater awareness and understanding of these issues, particularly in health care and social services, are more likely to hold positive attitudes towards transgender people (Clark & Hughto, 2020). For example, a study conducted on medical students demonstrated significantly more favourable attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ individuals following a 1 hour lecture on sexual orientation and LGBTQIA+ health needs (Wahlen et al., 2020). Conversely, a lack of knowledge or exposure to misinformation can reinforce negative stereotypes and attitudes towards transgender individuals. For instance, people who are unfamiliar with the complexities of gender identity may hold rigid, binary views of gender, leading to discomfort or even hostility towards those who do not conform to traditional norms. Overall, increasing knowledge about gender diversity and the challenges faced by transgender individuals is essential to better understanding how these factors influence public perceptions (Clark & Hughto, 2020).

Gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs

The recent focus on detransitioners has sparked a debate that the mere existence of people detransitioning perhaps “indicates a need for increased gatekeeping” of gender-affirming medical care (Slothouber, 2020, p. 91). This has triggered the introduction of restrictions on gender transitions in several typically progressive countries, including the UK and Sweden (Regnerus & Vermurlen, 2022). The belief that gender dysphoria is illegitimate may perpetuate a harmful discourse that those who detransition are attention-seeking or that they never experienced authentic gender concerns (Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2023).

Further, detransitioning has, at times, been weaponised in societal debates against gender transitions. Such arguments frame detransitioning as proof that transgender identities are transient or misguided; reinforcing harmful stereotypes (Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2023). Using detransitioning to discredit gender dysphoria has exposed both transgender and detransitioning community members to increased scrutiny, discrimination, and a lack of access to support systems.

Current study

Based solely upon these overall findings of attitudes towards transgender individuals, it is difficult to ascertain whether parallels may be drawn between the attitudes toward transgender and detransitioning individuals. Therefore, the current study aimed to explore the influence of both demographic variables (i.e. age, sex, gender identity, sexuality, education, religiosity, interpersonal contact and perceived knowledge) and attitudinal predictors (i.e. social role beliefs, knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues, economic beliefs and gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs) of societal attitudes towards gender detransitioning. Researching societal attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned is crucial due to their unique social experiences and stressors (Mackinnon et al., 2022b). Developing interventions that target these predictive factors can help build tailored social inclusion efforts, support programs, and healthcare initiatives. These are essential to addressing the unmet care needs of this population and reducing the stigma they face (Mackinnon et al., 2022a; Vandenbussche, 2021). By examining the factors influencing societal attitudes toward the detransitioning community, the current study seeks to uncover underlying biases and misconceptions, with the aim of contributing to improved understanding and potentially informing future social, clinical, or policy-related responses.

For this study, participants were asked to share their attitudes towards individuals who have explicitly detransitioned into a cisgender identity, as opposed to another variation of gender minority. This is a pivotal distinction as it allows for an examination of potential biases towards those who, post-detransition, may no longer be challenging social norms in the same way as transgender or other gender-diverse individuals.

As such, the current study aimed to investigate the following questions:

(1) What factors influence people’s attitudes towards detransitioning individuals?

(2) How do demographic and sociodemographic factors correlate with attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned?

(3)

  1. a.

    Do attitudinal factors (i.e., social role beliefs, economic beliefs, knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues, and gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs) predict attitudes toward individuals who have detransitioned, as measured by the Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (TABS), above and beyond that of demographic variables?

  2. b.

    What are the most important predictors of attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned?

Method

Participants

A non-random convenience sample of 351 adults residing in Australia participated in the study (40 male, 291 female, and 20 other). Ages ranged from 18 to 77 years (M = 36.9, SD = 12.1). See Table 1 for a breakdown of the sample characteristics. Data was collected over a 3 week period in August 2024. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, living in Australia, and fluent in English.

Table 1 Demographic and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Sample.
Full size table

Participants were recruited via social media (i.e. Facebook), and thus represent a subset of the general Australian public who use this platform. Recruitment involved seeking moderator permission to advertise the study in various groups, including general community interest pages, local community groups organised by suburb or region, and pages related to social issues or psychology. These groups were chosen to ensure a range of demographics and interest areas were captured. This sampling approach was non-random, and not demographically representative of the general Australian population. Snowballing methods were also used, whereby participants were encouraged to share the link to the survey to increase the size of the sample. Participants completed a self-report online questionnaire using the digital survey platform Qualtrics, where all participants were exposed to the same set of compulsory questions. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee prior to recruitment (No. 206172).

Design

The current study adopted a correlational, cross-sectional design. This research was not pre-registered, and no formal pre-analysis plan was submitted. The study was exploratory in nature, and all sampling decisions, measures, and analyses are reported transparently in line with open science principles.

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked to share their age in years, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, education level, and personal familiarity with transgender and detransitioning individuals (Do you personally know someone who is transgender/detrans?: 1 = yes; 2 = no; If yes, at what level is this relationship? 1 = Friend/Close friend; 2 = Family member; 3 = Acquaintance). Also explored alongside demographics, was participant religiosity (“How influential religious beliefs are in the formation of beliefs and attitudes”: 1 = not at all influential; 6 = completely influential) (M = 2.6, SD = 1.8), perceived knowledge of transgender issues (“I feel I am well informed about transgender persons and issues”: 1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree) (M = 4.7, SD = 1.1), and perceived knowledge of detransitioning issues (“I feel I am well informed about detransitioned persons and issues”: 1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree) (M = 3.6, SD = 1.5).

To promote inclusivity and allow participants to self-identify in a way that reflected their lived experiences, the sex item included options such as “transgender male” and “transgender female”, and “nonbinary/gender nonconforming”. Although this blends aspects of both sex and gender, it was an intentional design choice to respect participants’ self-described identities. For analysis, responses were later recoded into separate variables for Sex (Male, Female, Nonbinary/Gender Nonconforming, Unsure/Questioning) and Gender Identity (Cisgender, Transgender, Unsure/Questioning).

Attitudes towards detransitioning individuals

A modified version of the 29-item Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (TABS) (Kanamori et al., 2017) was used to measure attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned. Where appropriate, terminology in the statements was altered to apply to detransitioning individuals, and one item (i.e., “If a transgender person identifies as a female, she should have the right to marry a man”) was removed due to its irrelevance to the current study. A forced-choice 6-point Likert-type scale was used for this measure (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Scores were summed for a total, with a minimum possible score of 28 indicating the lowest level of acceptance and a maximum possible score of 168 indicating the highest level of acceptance. The modified TABS is made up of three subscales; 14 items assessing comfort with detransitioning individuals (a = 0.94) (e.g. “I would feel comfortable having a detransitioning person into my home for a meal”), 9 items assessing beliefs around sex and gender (a = 0.95) (e.g. “Humanity is only male or female, there is nothing in between”) and 5 items assessing beliefs around human worth and value of detransitioning individuals (a = 0.92) (e.g. “Detransitioning individuals should be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other person”). The full scale demonstrated very high internal consistency (a = 0.96). While this suggests strong coherence among items, alphas above .95 can indicate potential item redundancy or an overly narrow construct, and should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Social role beliefs

The 13-item Social Roles Questionnaire (SRQ) (Baber & Tucker, 2006) measured the extent to which participants perceive gender as a dichotomy and whether social roles should be tied to gender. A forced-choice 6-point Likert-type scale was used for this measure (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). The questionnaire contains two subscales; 5 items assessing attitudes about social roles that are not typically gender-linked (Gender Transcendent), producing acceptable internal consistency (a = 0.78) in this sample (e.g. “People should be treated the same regardless of their sex”) and 8 items assessing attitudes about social roles traditionally linked to gender (Gender Linked), producing good internal consistency (a = 0.86) in this sample (e.g. “Mothers should make most decisions about how children are brought up”). Higher scores in this measure indicate more traditional beliefs around social roles. The SRQ produced good overall reliability (a = 0.89).

Knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues

A portion of 7 items from the Knowledge subscale of The Queering Individual Relational and Knowledge Scales (QUIRKS)–Provider (Wang et al., 2023) was used to assess the level of knowledge participants have of LGBTQIA+ health care needs and issues. A forced-choice 6-point Likert-type scale was used for this measure (e.g. “Transgender people are more likely to be rejected from their families”: 1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a greater degree of knowledge surrounding issues faced by sexual and gender minorities. Knowledge scales often show greater variability in responses as individuals may possess differing levels of knowledge across specific items. As a result, a lower reliability score was produced (a = 0.53), likely reflecting the inherent differences in participants’ factual knowledge.

Economic beliefs

A brief, 4-item, modified version of the Medical Condition Regard Scale (MCRS) (Christison et al., 2002) was used to assess whether participants believe that the treatment of detransitioning individuals produces a burden on health care and economic resources. A forced-choice 6-point Likert-type scale was used for this measure (e.g. “Treating detransitioning patients is a waste of medical dollars”: 1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards the economic needs of the detransitioning community. The scale produced good internal consistency (a = 0.87). Only two items were selected for use as they can be applied to the general population, and an additional two items were author-created to further target attitudes regarding the Australian healthcare system.

Gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs

A Gender Dysphoria Legitimacy Scale (GDLS) was comprised of three author-created items, each exploring participant’s attitudes and beliefs about the legitimacy of gender dysphoria. A common theme of mainstream media reports of detransitioning is the need to ‘protect’ children from a misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria and prevent them from making potentially irreversible changes they may later regret (Slothouber, 2020). In the same realm, some people believe individuals who undergo a gender transition are simply masking the actual problem and that health professionals should investigate for underlying causes of gender-related distress (Sanders et al., 2023). A forced-choice 6-point Likert-type scale was used for this measure, where lower scores indicate a greater belief in the legitimacy of gender dysphoria and more positive attitudes. The items were (1) “A child experiencing gender dysphoria is likely to change their mind so gender transition should be discouraged”, (2) “Transgender people almost always have other problems going on (e.g. trauma, mental illness, hormone imbalances) that they think will be solved by transitioning”, and (3) “People who detransition are simply attention seeking”. The scale produced acceptable internal consistency (a = 0.75) in this sample.

Reflexive positioning

The authors’ identities played a significant role in shaping the research process and the interpretations of the findings. This is a contentious topic, and the first author, a white, cisgender, heterosexual female, acknowledges that her perspectives are shaped by societal expectations around gender that are different from that of a man, a transgender person, or someone undergoing a gender detransition. These social positions influenced how she approached the data and the conclusions drawn. For instance, the first author entered the project assuming that most individuals who detransition do so by choice, believing they are no longer transgender. However, through reviewing participant narratives in existing literature, she came to understand that detransition can occur for a range of reasons including both internal factors (such as changes in gender identity) and external pressures such as societal marginalisation, oppression, or familial pressures. To mitigate the impact of these positionalities, the authors sought feedback from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. This included ongoing discussions with both supervising authors, a cisgender lesbian, and a transgender queer woman. These contributions helped surface potential blind spots and enriched the interpretive process. The authors acknowledge that they were unable to achieve a comprehensive understanding of all experiences of people who detransition. Time constraints and the scope of the study limited the inclusion of more representative voices, which remains an important goal for future research.

Results

Data screening and preparation

The data were entered in SPSS Version 28 and cleaned. Appropriate data screening and assumption testing protocols were undertaken and met prior to beginning the analysis.

Multivariate outliers (n = 17) were identified and removed using Mahalanobis distance, with a significance threshold of p < 0.001. These outliers were identified post hoc, after initial screening. Before conducting regression analyses, assumption testing was performed. This included checks for normality of residuals, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity (assessed via Variance Inflation Factors and tolerance statistics).

Categorical variables with multiple levels were dichotomised to facilitate statistical modelling. Given the relatively small sample sizes in some categories, including nonbinary genders and specific education levels, collapsing these categories was necessary to ensure sufficient statistical power. To guide the dichotomisation process, and ANOVA was conducted to assess whether smaller subgroups (nonbinary individuals, those with “unsure/questioning” gender identities) showed significant differences in the outcome variable. If a subgroup did not demonstrate a statistically significant relationship with the outcome and was too small to be meaningfully analysed as a separate category, it was excluded to simplify the dichotomisation process. This approach was taken to balance statistical rigour within the constraints of the sample.

The final dichotomised variables were coded as follows: Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female (individuals who selected “Nonbinary”, “Gender nonconforming” or “Unsure” were excluded due to low numbers); Gender Identity: 0 = Cisgender, 1 = Transgender (individuals who selected “Unsure/Questioning” were excluded due to low numbers); Sexual Orientation: 0 = Heterosexual/Straight, 1 = Sexual Minority; Education: 0 = High School or Below, 1 = Tertiary Education. While dichotomisation can lead to a loss of nuance, this approach was necessary to ensure stable regression models and improve interpretability. Future research with larger and more diverse samples should aim to retain more granular categories where possible. Due to the sensitive nature of the data and risk of re-identification, the anonymised dataset has not been made publicly available.

Preliminary analysis

To investigate Research Question 1 (What factors influence people’s attitudes towards detransitioning individuals?) and Research Question 2 (How do demographic factors correlate with attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned?), bivariate correlations were explored (see Table 2 for correlation matrix), finding that sex, gender identity, sexuality, religiosity and interpersonal contact with transgender individuals (ContactT) and detransitioning individuals (ContactD) significantly correlated with the attitudes toward those detransitioning, and were included in the main analysis. No statistical correction (e.g., Bonferroni adjustment) was applied to the correlation matrix, as this analysis was exploratory in nature and intended to provide an overview of variable relationships. Readers are cautioned to interpret results, particularly those close to the .05 significance threshold, with care, given the increased risk of Type I error in exploratory analyses.

Table 2 Correlation Matrix.
Full size table

Although TABS subscale-level findings were reported to explore specific components of attitudinal belief, the TABS total score was used in the regression model to represent overall attitudes and to reduce the risk of multicollinearity across conceptually similar subscales.

Main analysis

To investigate Research Question 3a (Do attitudinal factors influence attitudes toward individuals who have detransitioned, above and beyond that of demographic variables?) and Research Question 3b (What are the most important predictors of attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned?), a Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis was conducted to examine the individual contributions of each predictor variable to the total TABS score, over and above the contribution of the demographic variables. The variables were entered in two steps, with demographic variables entered in step 1 (i.e. sex, gender identity, sexuality, religiosity, ContactT and ContactD), followed by attitudinal predictor variables (i.e. social role beliefs, economic beliefs, knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues, and gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs) entered in step 2. This analytic approach was hypothesis-driven and grounded in prior research indicating that attitudinal factors (e.g., beliefs and values) often explain more variance in prejudice-related outcomes than demographic characteristics alone. Using a hierarchical model allowed for the evaluation of whether attitudinal variables contribute unique explanatory power beyond that provided by demographic predictors.

The hierarchical regression results, demonstrated that step 1 [demographic variables], explained 24.8% of the variance in attitudes toward individuals who have detransitioned (R2 = 0.248, F (6, 324) = 17, p < 0.001). The addition of attitudinal variables (social role beliefs, economic beliefs, knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues, and gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs) in Model 2, significantly increased the variance by 53%, accounting for 77.9% of the variance (R2 = 0.779, F (4, 320) = 191.978, p < 0.001). In the final model, greater contact with detransitioning individuals, more progressive social role beliefs, stronger economic equity beliefs, greater knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues, and stronger belief in the legitimacy of gender dysphoria were all positively associated with higher TABS scores, indicating more positive attitudes toward individuals who have detransitioned. Among these, social role beliefs emerged as the strongest predictor, suggesting that participants who rejected traditional gender norms were especially likely to express affirming attitudes toward detransitioning individuals. See Table 3 for a summary of the regression analysis.

Table 3 Coefficients for Each Model.
Full size table

Discussion

This study explored societal attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned and identified the most significant predictors. Overall, the findings suggest that individual attitudes toward detransitioning are shaped not only by personal beliefs or biases but may also be influenced by broader sociocultural norms surrounding gender, identity, and transition. Consistent with previous research, demographic factors like gender and sexuality were significant predictors of attitudes towards detransitioning individuals (Antoszewski et al., 2007; Copp & Koehler, 2017). Specifically, female participants and those identifying as non-heterosexual tended to express more positive attitudes. This may reflect broader patterns of empathy and acceptance of detransitioning individuals from the perspective of similarly marginalised societal groups. While the analysis focused on sexuality as a predictor, it is possible that is association reflects broader ideological or political factors related to rights and access to care, as opposed to the sexuality itself. Higher religiosity was also associated with more negative attitudes toward detransitioning, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that individuals with stronger religious commitment may be more likely to endorse less progressive views on gender diversity (Campbell et al., 2019; Greenburg & Gaia, 2019; Kanamori et al., 2019).

The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that demographic variables explained nearly a quarter of the variance in attitudes, highlighting their initial importance. However, the assumption that these demographic traits are inherently linked to positive attitudes risks oversimplifying the complexity of attitudinal formation. When attitudinal factors (i.e. social role beliefs, economic beliefs, knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues, and gender dysphoria legitimacy beliefs) were included, they accounted for a substantial increase in explained variance.

Interestingly, nearly all sociodemographic predictors lost their significance in Model 2, once attitudinal factors were included, suggesting that attitudes are shaped more by overall worldview, values, and knowledge than by simple demographic characteristics. While demographic factors might predict initial attitudes, the enduring effects of knowledge, social role beliefs, and economic beliefs suggest that interventions should focus more on fostering a critical perspective of social norms, gender diversity, and worldview. Engaging people to think more deeply about their values may prove more effective in shifting attitudes (Wesp et al., 2019).

This shift in significance between models may be partially explained by the overlap in variance between demographic and attitudinal predictors. Some of the zero-order correlations between demographic variables and attitudes towards detransitioning were relatively weak but still statistically significant. This is likely due to the large sample size, which increases statistical power and makes it easier to detect even small effects. However, several of these demographic variables became nonsignificant in the regression model once attitudinal variables were added. This may be because the attitudinal variables accounted for much of the same variance in the outcome as the demographic predictors, suggesting that personal beliefs and knowledge may be stronger and more direct predictors of attitudes towards detransitioning than demographic variables alone.

Of the sociodemographic factors that remained significant in the final model, the differential effects of interpersonal contact with transgender individuals and detransitioning individuals highlight the complexity of social attitudes towards gender identity. While contact with transgender communities generally leads to more positive attitudes (King et al., 2009; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Regnerus & Vermurlen, 2022), personal relationships with detransitioning people showed an unexpected negative correlation. This discrepancy may be influenced by the quality of the contact, where negative interactions could be driving these findings. The nature of these interactions appears to be more influential than the mere contact itself (Barlow et al., 2012), emphasising the need for further research to explore how different types of contact and interpersonal relationships shape attitudes in ways that the current study did not capture.

The large increase in R-squared between Model 1 and Model 2 may suggest some risk of overfitting, particularly given the number of predictors included in the final model. While this study did not assess adjusted R-squared or variance inflation factors (VIF), future research could incorporate these steps to better evaluate model stability and multicollinearity.

The positive relationship between knowledge and attitudes underscores the importance of education in shaping public perceptions. This is reflected in the positive regression coefficient for the QUIRKS measure, where higher scores (indicating greater knowledge of issues faced by sexual and gender minorities) were associated with more positive attitudes with detransitioners. This finding is consistent with existing research on the role of knowledge in countering misinformation and stereotypes (Antoszewski et al., 2007; Clark & Hughto, 2020). As the media often perpetuates overly simplistic or negative portrayals of detransitioning, increasing public knowledge through targeted, factual education may be effective in challenging these harmful narratives (Sanders et al., 2023). However, challenges exist, especially where media or political discourse opposes such education. Interventions must address critical thinking and empathy alongside knowledge.

The current study also found that traditional social role beliefs significantly predict negative attitudes toward detransitioning, with the negative beta coefficient for the SRQ indicating that individuals with more transitional beliefs about gender roles (higher SRQ scores) tended to hold more negative attitudes towards detransitioning. This may be because detransitioning challenges the prevailing narrative of gender transition as a linear, one-way process (Nagoshi et al., 2008; Tebbe & Moradi, 2012). This narrative, often reinforced by media and public discourse, may exacerbate discomfort with the concept of detransitioning, and therefore lead to more negative attitudes. Theoretically, these findings suggest an extension of existing theories on social role beliefs and prejudice. While current theories have established that rigid adherence to traditional gender roles is associated with negative attitudes to gender nonconformity (Butler, 2004; Eagly & Wood, 2011), this study suggests that traditional social role beliefs also negatively shape attitudes towards gender detransitioning.

Participants who believe treating detransitioning individuals burdens Australia’s health care system are also more likely to have negative attitudes towards them. This interpretation is supported by the positive regression coefficient for the MCRS, where higher scores reflect greater support for the economic needs of detransitioners. In other words, those who reject the idea that detransitioners are a financial burden tend to express more positive attitudes towards them. This finding aligns with research suggesting that when individuals believe a population’s healthcare needs strain the economy, they may develop, or reinforce existing prejudices (Antoszewski et al., 2007; Khatri & Assefa, 2023). These findings may reflect broader concerns or uncertainties about healthcare funding for detransitioning care, though the study did not directly assess misconceptions.

Furthermore, it was found that people who do not believe in the legitimacy of gender dysphoria hold more negative attitudes towards detransitioning individuals. This is reflected in the negative regression coefficient for the GDLS, where lower scores indicate greater belief in the legitimacy of gender dysphoria and were associated with more positive attitudes toward detransitioning. This aligns with research suggesting that questioning the legitimacy of gender dysphoria leads individuals to perceive detransitioning as validating their scepticism towards transgender identities (Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2023). This underscores the urgent need to combat misinformation and challenge narratives that delegitimise gender dysphoria.

Limitations and future directions

While this research provides valuable insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the use of convenience sampling inherently introduces bias into the sample. Participants self-selected into the study, which likely attracted individuals with particular interests or strong opinions on the subject matter, thereby skewing the data. This is further compounded by the overrepresentation of certain demographic groups (i.e. over 80% female, and over 50% with a tertiary education or higher), negatively influencing generalisability of these findings.

In particular, the sample was predominantly composed of cisgender, heterosexual women, which likely influences the findings in several ways. This overrepresentation may have reduced variability in key predictors, and potentially obscured meaningful group differences by influencing effect sizes. As such, caution is warranted in interpreting the findings as representative of wider community attitudes.

The process used to determine which variables entered the regression model warrants consideration as a potential limitation. ANOVA was used as an initial exploratory step to assess whether categorical variables were associated with the outcome, however this approach does not consider multivariate relationships, confounding variables, or interaction effects. Relying solely on significance testing at this stage may have excluded variables that could have contributed meaningfully within the regression model. Additionally, some categories were excluded due to small subgroup sizes. Future research would benefit from a more theory-driven approach to variable selection, prioritising conceptual relevance alongside statistical considerations.

Another limitation pertains to the definition of “detransition” used in this study, which did not encompass individuals who have retransitioned, or who have detransitioned solely due to external pressures. This restriction makes it difficult to ascertain whether participants were considering the specific definition of detransitioning proposed in this study when responding to the survey questions. Moreover, the measures used in this study, although similar to those employed in related research, were modified, and therefore may lack the complexity to adequately address the unique aspects of detransitioning, potentially affecting the validity of the findings.

Finally, the sensitivity of the study topic may have influenced the characteristics of the sample. Public responses indicated discomfort with the research, which likely affected who chose to participate or complete the survey. As a result, the findings may not represent a true cross-section of societal attitudes. These limitations underscore the challenges of conducting research on highly contentious topics, and the need for careful consideration of how public perception may shape study outcomes. This consideration could involve using measures designed to detect social desirability bias to detect whether participants are responding in a way they think is socially acceptable rather than truthful.

To better understand factors influencing attitudes towards detransitioning, future research should consider incorporating qualitative methodologies. Qualitative studies could provide more nuanced insights into personal experiences and social contexts that shape attitudes, particularly those related to gender roles and economic beliefs. In-depth interviews or focus-groups could explore how people conceptualise detransitioning and the underlying reasons behind their attitudes, offering a richer context than surveys alone. Such approaches could also clarify whether participants’ responses align with the specific definitions and contexts intended by the researchers.

Additionally, future studies could implement experimental or intervention-based designs to understand the role of knowledge on gender role beliefs or economic attitudes. For instance, an intervention aimed at increasing participants’ knowledge about transitioning, detransitioning, and associated economic implications could be used to assess how increased awareness impacts attitudes. This would build on the current study’s findings by directly linking knowledge acquisition to changes in social role beliefs. Emerging research suggests that significant economic resources are being allocated to individuals who are denied access to gender-affirming care, leading to higher mental health costs (Baker & Restar, 2022; Jarrett et al., 2021; Padula et al., 2016). Public awareness of these economic realities might shift opinions, with more people viewing gender-affirming care positively when considering its potential to reduce overall healthcare expenditures. Future studies could explore this economic dimension in greater detail, proposing interventions that address misconceptions and highlight the financial realities associated with detransitioning.

Conclusion

This study illuminates how our beliefs, knowledge, and personal experiences interact to shape our attitudes towards individuals who have detransitioned. Specifically, while most demographic factors were initially significant predictors of attitudes, their significance was reduced after accounting for more complex attitudinal variables. However, contact with detransitioning individuals (ContactD) remained a significant predictor, suggesting that both personal experience and attitudinal beliefs contribute uniquely to overall attitudes. Furthermore, traditional social role beliefs emerged as the strongest predictor of negative attitudes, while increased knowledge of LGBTQIA+ issues was associated with more positive attitudes. These findings highlight the importance of personal beliefs and social attitudes, such as openness to diverse gender roles and familiarity with detransitioning individuals, in shaping acceptance toward detransitioning people. While the results are preliminary and based on a non-representative sample, they point to the potential value of increasing public awareness and understanding of gender diversity, particularly through education and personal contact. These findings may help inform future efforts to reduce stigma and foster more inclusive social attitudes.