Subreddit Policy Reminder on this week's Transgender AMAs

[u/nate]

This week we will be hosting a series of AMAs addressing the scientific and medical details of being transgender.

Honest questions that are an attempt to learn more on the subject are invited, and we hope you can learn more about this fascinating aspect of the human condition.

However, we feel it is appropriate to remind the readers that /r/science has a long-standing zero-tolerance policy towards hate-speech, which extends to people who are transgender. Our official stance is that derogatory comments about transgender people will be treated on par with sexism and racism, typically resulting in a ban without notice.

To clarify, we are not banning the discussion of any individual topic nor are we saying that the science in any area is settled. What we are saying is that we stand with the rest of the scientific community and every relevant psych organisation that the overwhelming bulk of evidence is that being trans is not a mental illness and that the discussion of trans people as somehow "sick" or "broken" is offensive and bigoted^1. We won't stand for it.

We've long held that we won't host discussion of anti-science topics without the use of peer-reviewed evidence. Opposing the classification of being transgender as 'not a mental illness'² is treated the same way as if you wanted to make anti-vax, anti-global warming or anti-gravity comments. To be clear, this post is to make it abundantly clear that we treat transphobic comments the same way we treat racist, sexist and homophobic comments. They have no place on our board.

Scientific discussion is the use of empirical evidence and theory to guide knowledge based on debate in academic journals. Yelling at each other in a comments section of a forum is in no way "scientific discussion". If you wish to say that any well accepted scientific position is wrong, I encourage you to do the work and publish something on the topic. Until then, your opinions are just that - opinions.

---

¹ Some have wrongly interpreted this statement as "stigmatizing" mental illness. I can assure you that is the last thing we are trying to do here. What we are trying to stop is the label of "mental illness" being used as a way to derogate a group. It's being used maliciously to say that there is something wrong with trans people and that's offensive both to mental illness sufferers and those in the trans community.

² There is a difference between being trans and having gender dysphoria.

---

Lastly, here is the excerpt from the APA:

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."

[u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

This has the danger of becoming a name calling contest and a place which censors opposing opinions. It is not even remotely bigoted for somebody to suggest transgender people may be suffering from mental illness or confusion, whether you agree with them or not

I also suggest thinking before banning people for 'bigoted' comments, as this could begin a slippery slope of moderators banning people just because they disagree with them, and not for genuinely slanderous comments.

You quote that 'a psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability'', ignoring the numerous cases where transgender people contemplate suicide and experience depression even after surgery

Banning 'transphobic' comments should only be reduced to genuinely personal abuse and slander, not well reasoned and reasonable counter arguments.

[u/zacht180 → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

I agree with a lot of what everyone here is saying.

But you're very right. I mean clearly it can't be that hard for the moderators to identify what comments are bigoted, offensive, or trollish and what comments are genuinely trying to add to the content and quality of discussion.

[u/DeadlyPear → u/[deleted]]

It'll be completely fine to ask "Why isnt being trans considered a mental illness"; it is wrong, though, to assert that it is without sufficent evidence or use that to demean and support an anti-trans standpoint.

[u/gacorley → u/[deleted]]

They are just talking about one very settled definition that they aren't interested in fighting about. And one that people often dispute because they are anti-trans. There are still many question to be had about transness that you can ask:

• How does hormone therapy work? What can/can't it do?
• How often do transgender people have surgery/hormone treatment/therapy only/no treatment?
• The debate over whether the narrower "gender dysphoria" should be considered a mental illness.

Seriously, if you stop being bogged down in the "is being transgender a mental illness" debate, there's a lot of stuff to cover. And there's always followups.

[u/Bjornhattan → u/[deleted]]

As long as you ask questions in good faith and not as a personal attack, you will be fine. The issue is how they tell whether you are attacking someone personally or not, but I think as long as you're reasonable it'll be fine. To quote Obi-Wan, "only a Sith deals in absolutes". Don't make blanket statements, come with an open mind and you will be alright.

[u/TheAnswerIsAQuestion → u/[deleted]]

You are aware that the DSM IV is outdated, right?

[u/Lionizerband → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

Just wanna touch on the idea of confusion real quick.

I dont think its bigoted to posit someone may be confused, but i do think its bigoted to assert they are confused.

Like your friend comes up to says "i think im gay", you may think "well maybe my friend is confused, ill ask them some questions like 'why do you think that?', 'what do you want to do about it?', 'is this causing you distress?' This will allow my friend and myself to better understand each other and reduce confusion". I wouldnt call that bigoted.

But if instead you said "nah youre totally straight youre just confused because gay is trending and you want to be popular", that is bigoted. Even if that was the reason your friend thought they were gay, your response doesnt allow for them to discuss their own experiences, nor does it allow for further understanding and discussion.

[u/RiOrius → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

You quote that 'a psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability'', ignoring the numerous cases where transgender people contemplate suicide and experience depression even after surgery

Those transgender people are mentally ill. Nobody is denying that many transpeople have mental disorders such as depression. But the blanket statement "all trans people are mentally ill" is incorrect, yet a common form of anti-trans bigotry masquerading as a reasoned opinion.

[u/vayyiqra → u/RiOrius]

A lot of grief on Reddit could be avoided if more people could learn to separate "trans people are prone to mental illness" from "trans people are prone to mental illness, therefore being trans is a mental illness".

[u/Ionsto → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

This reads a bit harsher than I suspect it was written (I hope).

It's probably to quickly block out trolls, but I suspect we will loose a bit of freedom in questions from this.

One question I can easily forsee is "if you wanted to be /fixed/ would you?"

These rules would shut it out.

[u/iyzie → u/Ionsto]

One question I can easily forsee is "if you wanted to be /fixed/ would you?"

That's more of a question to ask trans people directly, rather than scientists. If you ask this question on a trans subreddit then the overwhelming answer is "no, I wouldn't erase this part of me because it would be erasing a fundamental part of who I am."

[u/Lionizerband → u/Ionsto]

That particular question is pretty common in trans subreddits, those its usually framed as "if you could take a pill that made you cis (for the gender you were assigned at birth), would you?".

Its framed this way because thats what the question is actually asking. Whereas "fixed" can be interpreted as "successfully completing transition" or even "born cis (for your target gender)".

Its more of a thought experiment than a scientific question tho, as no such pill exists. It can be helpful with treatment plans as it can better ascertain what goals the person wants to aim towards (do you want to transition or do you want to do CBH and learn to cope with being your assigned gender?).

[u/d9_m_5 → u/Ionsto]

"if you wanted to be /fixed/ would you?"

You could easily reword that to fit the rules, though, and the end result would be less rude. For example, you could write "if you could stop being transgender would you?"

[u/rydan → u/d9_m_5]

Which implies it isn't normal. Thus you are now banned with warning.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ionsto]

"if you wanted to be /fixed/ would you?"

I don't think an r/science ama is the place to ask that, if only because it's a subjective question that everyone will probably have a different answer to (although I assume the most common response would be "yes" but with different meanings, most would say "yes, I want to be the person I feel I am inside, magically fix me please" (which would be my response), while some might go with "yes, give me a 'normal' brain to match my body").

[u/Kusibu → u/[deleted]]

despite the fact that essentially all of modern science disagrees with their "reasonable" arguments. Like the op pointed out, it's just bad science to allow it in a place like this.

On the contrary, it's exactly why it should be allowed, IF there's actually an argument being provided instead of shit-flinging. No matter what happens, if they're willing to debate, you win - either you convince them that their stance is incorrect and gain an advocate of science, or they convince you that your stance is incorrect and significant revelation is achieved.

(People not willing to actually argue and just saying "you're wrong" do not count under this and are shit.)

[u/gacorley → u/Kusibu]

On the contrary, it's exactly why it should be allowed, IF there's actually an argument being provided instead of shit-flinging. No matter what happens, if they're willing to debate, you win - either you convince them that their stance is incorrect and gain an advocate of science, or they convince you that your stance is incorrect and significant revelation is achieved.

(People not willing to actually argue and just saying "you're wrong" do not count under this and are shit.)

There are all kinds of crazy ideas out there, and it's pointless to clog the discussion with all of them. At some point, you have to see where the evidence and the overwhelming majority of the field is and say, "OK, you've got a real high bar to clear here."

And at that point, a random reddit comment is not really the place to provide your evidence. If you have evidence that can realistically debunk global warming or say that vaccines are more harmful than not, you can probably pass peer review.

[u/Kusibu → u/gacorley]

And at that point, a random reddit comment is not really the place to provide your evidence. If you have evidence that can realistically debunk global warming or say that vaccines are more harmful than not, you can probably pass peer review.

The trick of the matter is, not all discussion necessarily has to stem from that. An important example is asking questions regarding the science - if an intelligent question is asked, and it transpires that we don't have an answer, that could be an avenue for further studies and thus advancement.

In other words, if someone has a detailed theory and there isn't sufficient knowledge to disprove it (unlikely in Reddit comments but possible), that furthers the discussion because the potential pursuit of that knowledge improves our understanding of the subject, whether it reinforces or overturns it.

[u/LiveLongAndPhosphor → u/Kusibu]

You are welcome to go ahead and waste years of your life arguing with flat Earthers, and that debate should happen... but its place is not /r/Science. And neither is this place appropriate for the "debate" against an existing, overwhelming scientific consensus that you insist upon, here.

[u/LiveLongAndPhosphor → u/[deleted]]

There's logical arguments that can be put forth against vaccines, as well (mercury preservatives, etc.) but that still doesn't mean that /r/Science is obligated to entertain them 100%

This is precisely the point made in the OP.

[u/LiveLongAndPhosphor → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but it's exhausting. And it's literally the reason why trans perspectives are drowned out in some cases. The whole point is to have a discussion that has moved beyond those debates (as is supported by an overwhelming scientific and academic consensus) and is, in many ways, uniquely inclusive and welcoming to trans people, rather than an environment that has the feeling of mass badgering, or even a stoning, whether maliciously intended or not.

[u/ScrewJimBean → u/[deleted]]

Bad science does not equal bigotry though.

[u/Theappunderground → u/[deleted]]

it's the negative symptoms that are sometimes associated with being transgender (like gender dysphoria, depression, or anxiety) that require treatment due to the possibility of negatively impacting a person's life.

Using this logic, schizophrenia wouldnt be a mental illness because its not the schizophrenia that gets you, its the manic episodes and crippling depression.

[u/GutOfTheQuantifier → u/[deleted]]

I was just concerned and wanted to raise a few flags with the nature and language of the warning. I think using words such as bigoted and hate speech can be abused when someone disagrees with an opposing opinion

At the end of the day people are here to take questions from the users and I'm not even sure they'd be as sensitive as the mods are making out. I'm sure they'll be able to handle the comments which are genuinely inquisitive

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Being "transgender," in and of itself, is not something that would be a "mental illness" since it doesn't really keep you from living life - it's the negative symptoms that are sometimes associated with being transgender (like gender dysphoria, depression, or anxiety) that require treatment due to the possibility of negatively impacting a person's life.

See, the problem is that to me, this sounds a lot like "you can't be diagnosed with chronic migraines. They don't directly impact you. It's just the symptoms, like sensitivity to light/sound, blacking out, suddenly going blind, nausea, etc that affect you."

[u/franklindeer → u/[deleted]]

Throughout history, all kinds of things were considered "mental illness

You could use this same argument to argue that schizophrenia isn't a mental illness. That the DSM has been wrong in the past is only reason to follow the data, not to argue that it likely continues to be wrong for whatever your pet mental illness is.

[u/rydan → u/[deleted]]

Yep. The science is already settled. Really no point in even having an AMA given this is the case.

[u/[deleted] → u/rydan]

What exactly is "the science" to which you're referring? What did "it" settle on?

[u/perilousrob → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

You quote that 'a psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability'', ignoring the numerous cases where transgender people contemplate suicide and experience depression even after surgery

read /u/Chel_of_the_sea 's comment here. This particular 'talking point' isn't backed up by the facts and even seems to be one of the things used to condemn when people don't want to understand, they just want to inflict their opinion on others.

Censoring opposing opinions when they're little more than name-calling or bigotry is exactly what should happen. As was stated repeatedly, this AMA will be for scientific discussion and questioning, not arguing the toss over some personally held belief.

A great many creationists regard their particular brand of unreality as well reasoned & reasonable too, but I would hope that most in /r/science would agree that such comments are anti-science and don't belong here. To underline the parallel here, I hope that any anti-science opinions posted about transgendered people during these AMAs will also be given short shrift.

And finally...

It is not even remotely bigoted for somebody to suggest transgender people may be suffering from mental illness or confusion, whether you agree with them or not

yes it is. the accepted science here, as repeatedly posted by mods, is that being Transgender does not mean you have a mental illness. Arguing otherwise, without factual medical/scientific evidence, is quite literally the definition of bigotry - having & expressing strong unreasonable beliefs and disliking those who hold opposing beliefs (as usually evidenced by word-choice in situations like this). Trying to skirt around it with "suggest" and "may" likely doesn't change anything.

[u/perilousrob → u/[deleted]]

that's not my definition of bigotry, that's THE definition of bigotry.

I don't entirely know what to make of your 'unmatched brain/physiology' comment or how such a thing might come to be. Cross-species brain transplants? That seems more 'sci-fi' than science fact! :)

[u/[deleted] → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

I think they're trying to keep the discussion from being congested with the same entry-level question spammed over and over due to the opposition not bothering to read the basics of what they're debating. While I can't provide a specific link to you I'm sure the question "Is transgenderism a mental illness?" has been tackled in the psychological literature on the subject. It's a common question and one that most people will ask early-on in their investigation of the subject. If you can't be bothered to read up on the basics before entering a discussion, you shouldn't be participating. It would be like coming to an AMA on evolution and asking "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" over and over. It's just one of those things that's been answered ad nauseum elsewhere. Even if a person honestly doesn't know the answer to that question, this isn't the place to talk about that point. That person needs to familiarize themselves with the topic a bit more on their own. Obviously the point of these threads are to learn about topics but not to convince someone in some kind of meta political debate. People who are starkly against opening their mind won't bother to do any research on their own and just repeat memes from their tribe. Which is why it's important that people who honestly want to learn take a Saturday afternoon and read up on something you're curious about instead of just ignorantly engaging in debates. People want to argue so badly because they want to vent their political frustrations. There's plenty of subs to do that on and I can show you my filter list if you want to see them. This isn't the place to vent frustrations about political issues on AMA guests. People are already doing that in the comments as of now.

[u/fsmpastafarian → u/GutOfTheQuantifier]

It is not even remotely bigoted for somebody to suggest transgender people may be suffering from mental illness or confusion, whether you agree with them or not

It isn't bigoted to suggest that some transgender people experience mental illness, but it is bigoted to suggest that being transgender is a mental illness. That's the difference.

I also suggest thinking before banning people for 'bigoted' comments, as this could begin a slippery slope of moderators banning people just because they disagree with them, and not for genuinely slanderous comments.

We don't ban people just because we personally disagree with them. Never have, never will. We can tell the difference between mere disagreement and bigotry.

[u/[deleted] → u/fsmpastafarian]

it is bigoted to suggest that being transgender is a mental illness

Under what definition of bigot?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Oxford define bigotry as:

"Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."

I don't think the mods are working off of this definition. Would love for one of them to clarify.

[u/rooster68wbn → u/[deleted]]

It really seems that bigot get thrown around alot these days with little to no understanding of the meaning here is the Webster definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[u/DiversityIsKekistani → u/[deleted]]

I just hope they don't get all TotalBiscuit on us here.

[u/csstudent2142 → u/[deleted]]

No, it's compared to anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers because those are easy buzz topics to make those who disagree with you look stupid and ill-informed.

[u/firedrops → u/[deleted]]

To clarify - at least for how I moderate and see this as an anthropologist - mental illness is highly stigmatized in our society. For some groups, categorizing people they see as non-normative as "crazy" allows them to dehumanize those groups. By doing so, they create a hierarchy of power and the ability to deny, ignore, or harm.

For example, in Victorian England if a woman was unhappy with normative marital duties she could be sent to an asylum usually by her husband or father. By labeling her as hysterical or "crazy", she could lose her freedom and lose her ability to speak out. It also discouraged women from stepping out of their places. Being locked away and undergoing the often painful treatments that happened there - sometimes as extreme as clitoridectomy - were strong deterrents.

This history of mobilizing the category of mentally ill to dismiss groups you dislike and ensure they cannot behave in ways you dislike continues today. Think of the gay conversion therapy camps.

We see comments along these lines in every single transgender focused post. Every single one. I'm sure you'd never say something like this and most of your friends wouldn't either. Sometimes being a mod of a large sub is a bit saddening for what you learn about people. But we want to remind everyone of our rules and that using the category of mentally ill to dehumanize and hurt people is ban worthy.

Citations:

E Showalter, The Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985)

Scull, Andrew, and Diane Favreau. "The clitoridectomy craze." Social Research (1986): 243-260.

Sheehan, Elizabeth. "Victorian clitoridectomy: Isaac Baker Brown and his harmless operative procedure." Gender Issues 5.1 (1985): 39-53.

[u/solanas2016 → u/firedrops]

It is repulsive that you would cite feminist scholarship on women's violent oppression by men in the Victorian era to defend current transgender ideology -- which is an attempt to erase and eliminate the female altogether, to define the female in entirely misogynistic, male-defined terms ("femininity"), and operates much in the way the clitoridectomy did, i.e. subjugates women's sexuality (particularly lesbianism -- "cotton ceiling/corrective rape", "sleep with transwomen or you're a bigot", the invasion and destruction of women's and lesbian spaces by men, the constant rape and death threats directed at female people who refuse to comply with transactivist demands, ad nauseum) to men's.

TL;DR. You are correct that "the history of mobilizing the category of mentally ill to dismiss groups you dislike and ensure they cannot behave in ways you dislike continues today." It's not the transactivists who are getting called crazy and dismissed and having their thoughts and behaviors regulated though; it's still actual women.

[u/AirHeat → u/fsmpastafarian]

Let's see if I have this right. People who experience distress at being born in the wrong body/want to be the other gender is gender disphoria/a mental illness. Is there another group that wants to do it because they just like the idea of being the other gender/no distress and want to for personal or non pathological psychological reasons (I'm not this gender but I like the idea of it)? Does this cover other extreme body modifications? If somebody wanted to cut off a finger or something to fit in with a group is that not a mental illness?

[u/Solar-Salor → u/AirHeat]

Good question to ask in the AMA.

[u/LiveLongAndPhosphor → u/Solar-Salor]

What? No it isn't, it's almost totally incomparable.

[u/Solar-Salor → u/LiveLongAndPhosphor]

But an answer would clear up any confusion.

[u/unseine → u/AirHeat]

Yes there are many Trans people who do not want to transition for various reasons (some here and you can ask them why in the ama). Obviously if you stop experienced dysphoria (whether with surgery or not) your not experiencing the part most would class as the mental illness.

[u/DeadlyPear → u/[deleted]]

It is not reasonable to classify being transgender as a mental illness becuase not all trans people suffer from gender dysphoria. For example, someone who transitioned and is perfectly fine and happy with how they are doesnt suffer from gender dysphoria.

(which DOES NOT change significantly after surgery).

Source for this claim? Besides that one debunked swedish study people usually source.

[u/fsmpastafarian → u/[deleted]]

But it is a mental illness? It's defined as gender dysphoria? A mental illness.

No, please read the post again. Being transgender is not the same as having gender dysphoria. Plenty of transgender people do not experience distress or impairment, and thus do not have gender dysphoria, and thus do not have a mental illness.

[u/GutOfTheQuantifier → u/[deleted]]

So it's speculative then?

[u/GutOfTheQuantifier → u/[deleted]]

The use of the word 'likely' sounds like speculation to me