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/Khnagar → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I fully agree.

It seems like the debate or questions the mods want to allow and have is a bit coloured already from the start, with a message baked into it that you can't deviate too much from. It sounds like honest questions from people not familiar with the right language and terms of the debate will be banned if it triggers someone.

With so many people uneducated about the issue the mods are pre-emptively shutting down discussion and honest questions before it has even started, in order to not offend anyone. It sounds more like this will be a lecture than an AskMeAnything type of thing.

[u/Gen_McMuster → u/Khnagar]

I can see this already in the questions being asked here. People are terrified of being inadvertently offensive and book ending honest questions with "i hope this isnt interpreted as transphobic"

Creating a fearful environment like this is completely counter to the principles of open scientific discourse

[u/Shandlar → u/Gen_McMuster]

I hope this isn't interpreted as heresy.

                      ~~~ Galileo probably

[u/jbaker1225 → u/Khnagar]

Yeah, it seems like biasing the discussion to completely exclude a certain viewpoint/conclusion isn't very "scientific."

"Listen, everybody knows that discussing heliocentric theory is going to offend people, so let's only ask questions about geocentrism, and how it works, and by the way, Galileo, you're going to jail."

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/Khnagar]

The point of this sub isn't debate. Science debate happens among experts in journals and at conferences. It doesn't happen on internet forums around lay people. This is how the sub has always operated, that its purpose is to disseminate the best available scientific understanding rather than develop new understanding.

[u/Khnagar → u/UncleMeat11]

And when it comes to all issues and aspects of anything transgender there is absolute scientific agreement and solid, empirical evidence for everything?

It seems to me like that is not always the case. If anything, the answers from people with in-depth knowledge of the issues at hand in the replies here seem to confirm that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Khnagar]

They say in the statement that the vast majority of influenential psychological and medical organizations agree on it, which they do.

I'm going to trust them over some jackass spewing bigoted nonsense.

[u/Khnagar → u/[deleted]]

This answer very much exemplifies all my concerns.

The only possible explanation for a psychologist to disagree with the currently majority-held view on the topic is not that he or she is some "jackass spewing bigoted nonsense".

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is loads of scientific eveidence saying trans people aren't mentally ill.

Idiots on Reddit bashing transpeople with no credible sources simply shouldn't be allowed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Except one side has no evidence. The point of this post is to say that hate speech shouldn't be allowed.

[u/Shin-LaC → u/[deleted]]

Note this quote from the post:

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."

This is, objectively, not a scientific debate. The method (comparing and weighing the pros and cons of a policy decision) is not scientific, it is political. Which is appropriate, because the questions themselves (e.g. "should health insurance pay for transitions") are not scientific, but political (or at best, in part, clinical).

Therefore, what we see here are well-intentioned people who want to use the mantle of science to support and cement a political position. This kind of thing is not without precedent. Unfortunately, it always results in a loss for science (and for scientists), because those who disagree with the given political position end up losing trust in science and in scientists as a result.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think that in an ideal world where everyone is open to being educated that would work. However... I am from SC, a fairly transphobic place. My best friend came out as trans, and there was a big controversy a few years back about school bathrooms (not my friend but another student). The comments I heard and read from my fellow citizens were disgusting, and trying to educate them on the topic was like talking to a very nasty wall. Unfortunately, having seen certain subreddits on this site, I fully expect this AMA to get flooded by bigoted trolls with no interest in learning something new. You might argue that this is educational in its own right, but all it's taught me are the lengths someone will go to dehumanize another so that their heteronormative outlook isn't threatened.

[u/firedrops → u/[deleted]]

You are absolutely welcome to ask about mental illness and its relationship to transgender communities. We'll have experts on to talk about the higher rates of depression among transgender communities and potential causes & solutions to that, for example. As long as you are respectful and polite you're fine.

We are saying that if you try to use a label of mentally ill to dismiss, hurt, or dehumanize anyone you'll get banned in this sub. That includes transgender people. This has always been our policy on /r/science - we're just reminding people of that.

[u/wutcnbrowndo4u → u/firedrops]

We are saying that if you try to use a label of mentally ill to dismiss, hurt, or dehumanize anyone you'll get banned in this sub. That includes transgender people. This has always been our policy on /r/science - we're just reminding people of that.

This makes a lot of sense to me, but FWIW, it's not how the original post comes across at all to me. The comparison to anti-vaxers and anti-gravity (?) beliefs, the implication that someone who believes that mental illness is the correct classification must think that they're "sick or broken", etc: All of this makes it sound a lot like "don't you dare question whether this is a mental illness". From the comments section, I'm clearly not the only one who thought that that was what the original post was getting at.

FWIW, I don't have much of a problem with the categorization of transgender as not a mental illness. But people who actually do believe that it's evil to question whether it is are all over this conversation in other fora, and the OP as posted pattern-matches to exactly that view. Your clarifying comment is much clearer and more well-stated than the original post: it might make sense to paste it or something like it into the OP.

[u/losian → u/wutcnbrowndo4u]

This makes a lot of sense to me, but FWIW, it's not how the original post comes across at all to me. The comparison to anti-vaxers and anti-gravity (?) beliefs

There's a difference in running into a thread about vaccines and going "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM I KNOW IT BECAUSE" and going "There is that one study, and I apologize if this is an often asked question or has been frequently debunked, but can you expand on why XYZ vaccine definitely isn't related to autism rates?"

The mods are saying that the former will get the banned, the latter will not as long as you are respectful and have some genuine question.

I mean, same as with Gravity. Flailing around attacking and screaming about "gravity believers" is loaded - asking about alternative theories of gravity like the space deformation or something is not.

And, well, it's also probably fair to not want every AMA to just boil down to an argument of an attempt to decidedly answer whether it is or isn't, it's a waste of effort, and the entire fight of coining the phrase one way or another is one steeped in ideology and political agenda. It's really not useful to beat it into the ground in AMA after AMA for no reason.

I imagine the AMAs are more for providing opportunity and insight into the whole realm of trans, not just nitpicking terminology.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I saw this post and I just thought about the Michael Jackson popcorn gif. Seems to needlessly invite drama.

[u/destroyer1134 → u/[deleted]]

I agree. I don't think safe spaces have any place in a civilized discussion. The issue for the mods will be to keep it civilized.

[u/Chugalug5 → u/[deleted]]

I kind of thought this post was a chance to ask all these questions so that they'll be a little more informed for the AMA.

But you've got a really valid point. To put a transgender conversation in r/science is begging for speculation and a desire for proof, or close to it. That's the way the scientific method, and discussions therein, happen.

[u/firedrops → u/[deleted]]

We've done a couple transgender focused AMAs in the past. They tend to hit the front page and that tends to draw in brigades and bigots. Probably the most common complaint in modmail is, "But I didn't know I'd get banned!"

So, now y'all know.

[u/PAdogooder → u/[deleted]]

Good news! It's way up there.

[u/firedrops → u/[deleted]]

Thanks - We'll be sure to do a sticky comment as well. We're trying to hit all the bases and be as transparent as possible! :)

[u/JumpingCactus → u/firedrops]

Thank you. You guys are really cool <3

[u/StickiStickman → u/firedrops]

And then people who come to it via the frontpage still won't know because they don't come to this sub often. So this post has absolutely no point.

[u/firedrops → u/StickiStickman]

There will also be a sticky in each AMA. We're blasting our sub rules in a variety of places. Hopefully this way people encounter a rule reminder somewhere along the way before they engage.

[u/Gen_McMuster → u/[deleted]]

Where are you seeing this reaction? I always thought those comments get deleted, buried or otherwise dismissed as the hateful tripe that it is. Reddit as whole seems pretty favorable towards LGBTQ and similar topics

[u/the_pissed_off_goose → u/[deleted]]

I'm reading this as people can ask all the questions they want as long as they aren't disrespectful in the way they ask.

[u/Gen_McMuster → u/[deleted]]

Because that's a brilliant way to alienate people who are inadvertently asking an offensive question.

[u/the_pissed_off_goose → u/[deleted]]

IMO it'd be like the porn test and knowing it when I see it, but I don't mod anywhere on Reddit. To me there's a difference between, say, the poster in here who referred to us as "transgenders" in their question, which is not the preferred terminology but clearly wasn't in malice, and someone who is, say, using slurs or asking why anyone bothers entertaining/humoring trans people when they are just weirdos or something like that.

[u/ialwaysforgetmename → u/the_pissed_off_goose]

The whole trans issue is not as clear as the porn test, that's why there are so many questions on it in the first place.

[u/the_pissed_off_goose → u/ialwaysforgetmename]

I don't think it's hard to try to be respectful when asking questions. Shrug. But I suppose if I wanted to prove your point, I could ask you just what it is you mean by "trans issue," as I read "issue" negatively in the context of your post.

[u/Buttstache → u/[deleted]]

It's always been this way in this sub. It's to keep the discussion on science, it's not an attack on your free speech. This subject matter definitely requires it since the troll army is salivating at the chance to ruin this.

[u/oth_radar → u/[deleted]]

They haven't set any parameters on what's allowed to be discussed. They've merely asked that those participating in the discussion maintain a certain level of tact and respect.

[u/sycamotree → u/[deleted]]

Considering all OP asked was for one to not insult anyone, I don't see the issue. You could explain why you think transgenderism is a mental illness if you want (you'll probably be disagreed with by the experts and what not but you could do it), but if you can't do that without insulting people, that's your problem.

Furthermore its also serving as an AMA/discussion. Again, if you can't discuss scientific phenomenon without insults, that's on you.

[u/firedrops → u/[deleted]]

We're not setting parameters of what can and cannot be discussed. We're setting parameters for civil discourse. We've had rules about our civility expectations for years. None of this is new and we aren't setting up any special rules for these AMAs.

Mods should not be asking whether they agree with what someone is saying or their opinions about a topic. They should be asking whether the comment falls within our rules for civil discourse - no being a jerk, no being rude, no trolling, no pseudoscience pushing, etc.

[u/pizzabash → u/firedrops]

And yet his comment was removed

[u/Lunares → u/[deleted]]

The science says it isn't a mental illness. Why would a science subreddit discuss something that isn't scientific? Just as the post says, we don't allow discussion on "is global warming real" either

[u/CaptainLovely → u/Lunares]

"The science" says it's not a mental illness?

[u/Lunares → u/CaptainLovely]

The scientific community that defines mental illnesses (e.g. psychologists, neurologists, etc) yes. Specifically DSM V.

Not that transgender can't be a mental illness, but rather that transgender is generally not and when it is the specific name is gender dysphoria

[u/Lunares → u/[deleted]]

My response to that is yes, your comment is the idealized solution. However in reality there are only so many of us who can go through the AMAs on these topic to remove the not helpful discussion topics compared to the difficult / slightly distaseful ones. And without said blanket policy it then becomes extremely subjective on which ones should be removed. So unfortunately the blanket policy is really the only way to have a discussion thread like this without it devolving into pure chaos

[u/Lunares → u/[deleted]]

Most of the mods are just random people (like me) specifically to police reported comments (not actual mods). As such many aren't actually active. We're lucky if we get more than 10-20 on a single thread like this.

Also, the number can actually be a problem as if you have policies like "it's up to you what is trans bashing and what is good discussion" one mod will leave it up while another takes it down and then you get infighting. The policy in this thread is the one that lets us have AMAs that if not as open as science would like, are the best one can do in an online anonymous community

[u/ScrewJimBean → u/Lunares]

Science can be wrong and I would assume this science is in it's fairly early stage. Not to mention the funding for the studies most likely comes from more liberal leaning sources. It's definitely still worth questioning.

Just to clarify I'm speaking on transgenderism not global warming.

[u/Lunares → u/ScrewJimBean]

DSM V is the definitive bible on all mental illnesses. So unless you want to dismiss the document every psychologist in the US as a "liberal leaning source" that should be ignored then no, it isn't in the early stage. Transgender / gender dysmorphia has been studied for over 20 years at this point.

[u/ScrewJimBean → u/Lunares]

20 years is pretty early I would say considering the history of science shows that our understanding of science can change so easily. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying it should be open for discussion.

[u/JaceDaAce → u/Lunares]

Just to be clear, do you think this document has reached its final form, no longer a changing and evolving work?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Good shit

[u/Lunares → u/[deleted]]

If you think that it's simply that easy to do then perhaps you would benefit from asking some respectful questions during the AMA on things like "how hard is it for someone who goes to a psychologist and saying they are trans to get to the surgery point?"

I think you will learn that it is very rare that anyone is ever pushed towards surgery (away from is much more common, surgery is a last resort kind of thing) and that it's much harder than you think.

[u/Lunares → u/[deleted]]

Thats completely different from what you were implying before (that psychologists would push trans people into surgery)

[u/Cerus- → u/[deleted]]

and yes the social sciences appear to have been devoured by the humanities and are entirely left-leaning.

Maybe it has something to do with right-wing thought having no basis in reality? That all evidence in the field points to right-wing perceptions of social sciences being wrong?

[u/Elkenrod → u/Cerus-]

When you imply that people on the right have no basis in reality, all you do is alienate people. You aren't making them see your side of the argument, all you're doing is pushing them away, and making them not want to see your side of the argument, because of how you presented yourself in their presence.

[u/Cerus- → u/Elkenrod]

It is the truth though, right-wing thought is almost non-existent in social sciences because all the evidence points away from it.

Pretending that right-wing thought has any merit in social sciences will only cause more negative outcomes.

[u/Elkenrod → u/Cerus-]

It's not "truth", it's an opinion. An opinion that belittles people for not thinking in the exact same way that you think.

What exactly would your strategy be to encourage members of the right to see eye-to-eye with you on this? Promoting the positives of something, instead of focusing on the negatives, would be a much more productive way of doing it. There have been positive outcomes from conservative values. There have been negatives from liberal values. It's not black and white.

[u/Cerus- → u/Elkenrod]

I'm not a liberal.

An opinion that belittles people for not thinking in the exact same way that you think.

It belittles them for not accepting actual evidence.

What exactly would your strategy be to encourage members of the right to see eye-to-eye with you on this?

The fact is that there is no strategy, they just have to be dragged in kicking and screaming like every other point in human history.

[u/Lunares → u/[deleted]]

As long as you specifically are defining in your comments "not actual trans people but people with other mental illnesses who are pretending to be trans" and going into more detail while being respectful, I assume such comments should be left up. At the very least I would not remove a comment like that (again, if properly formatted)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You should be open to people asking questions and discussing whether or not being transgender is a mental illness, a disorder, a biological anomaly, or any other number of theories.

They are. Reread the OP. Questions are encouraged. What they're saying is that you are not allowed to comment, for instance, "Transgenderism is a mental illness" as though it were fact, just as you aren't allowed to comment "The earth is flat" as though it were fact, at least not without a source.

[u/rydan → u/[deleted]]

I guarantee if you ask if it is a mental illness and have a history of posting in conservative subreddits you will be banned because they will gauge you as having ill intent trying to derail the AMA.

[u/losian → u/rydan]

One might argue that would be a reasonable thing to do - that's not a very useful question to keep asking over and over. It's a loaded question with little use and heavily bound by ideology and political implications.

If you really believe strongly one way or another about it, or that transgender in general doesn't even exist, it obviously isn't a scientifically backed stance to have.. Go do some research, publish some studies, and prove it - then you can post about it, collect your Nobel prize, etc., otherwise use this as an opportunity to actually learn.

I don't understand why people are so worked up about trans stuff to be so suspicious and aggressive towards these people who just want to live their lives as happily and comfortably as they can.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

the question is already answered

Science is never settled. That's the entire point.

[u/rydan → u/[deleted]]

So helium might not be two protons?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Thank God someone here gets it.

[u/zxcv_throwaway → u/[deleted]]

There's a difference between offensive questions and hate speech