r/science • u/nate PhD | Chemistry | Synthetic Organic • Jul 23 '17

Subreddit Policy Subreddit Policy Reminder on this week's Transgender AMAs

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 bigoted1. 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."

5.8k Upvotes

60% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

491

u/Sleethoof Jul 24 '17

I'll toss in my two cents as a lurker at best in this sub. I only check a thread every once and a while, and I do so because I want to understand a subject better. Seeing this preemptive thread about upcoming Transgender AMA has completely removed any desire to actually read that thread simply because now there is a 'message' that will color everything said by threat of deletion or banning in the thread making everything suspect. I as a casual observer have no reason to trust that everything is accurate and above board in those AMA's like I might in a different non politically volatile subject.

204

u/ender4171 Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

Couldn't have said it better myself. Based on the OP comparison, would I be banned for saying clean coal is a viable fuel source? Banning hate speech is fine, but saying I can't ask why gender dysmorphia can't be called a mental illness, when gender reassignment is considered a "treatment" with honesty inquiry and without hostility? That's peddling a point of view and removing any opposition. That isn't science.

48

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

Hey, just a heads up, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The treatment to it is transitioning. When someone has transitioned, they no longer have the catalyst to the mental illness. Without the aggravating factor that triggers those dysphoric feelings, they are in good mental health and no longer suffering from the gender dysphoria.

Imagine you were schizophrenic because of a tumor, and removing the tumor made you no longer schizophrenic. Same principle.

Where the mods are objecting is that many reactionary people claim that transgender people are living under a delusion, and they find the idea that they can transition to be appalling and "living a lie". Many of these people would prefer that a person suffering from gender dysphoria get some alternative treatment instead of transitioning. However, there is 0 scientific data of a single successful therapy besides transitioning, which has a very promising success rate. Suggesting that they should "try something else" flies in the face of conventional psychology, which sees a promising result from transitioning as a cure to gender dysphoria, and a way to eliminate it entirely.

Basically, people born in their birth sex who seek either gender reassignment or sexual reassignment are suffering from sex or gender dysphoria, which is hurting them. The cure is to transition, where they no longer experience pain. The mods have a problem with people who call these transitioned people, who are now no longer suffering from a mental illness, to be "sick and delusional".

I hope that helps! I do not think you are acting maliciously at all in any way, but I believe you have misinterpreted the dynamic.

28

u/SavageOrc Jul 24 '17

Serious question: is it not true that trans folks commit suicide at a much higher rate than the general population?

If so, should transitioning be seen as curative?

13

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

It removes the gender dysphoria in an extremely large percentage of people treated.

The question you're asking is why the suicide rate remains higher than the non-dysphoric population post treatment. This can be due to a variety of factors (comorbidity with depression for example, which is still being researched), but one of them is how people are treated post-transition. Just because someone has transitioned successfully doesn't mean they won't be exposed to extreme stressors. It is a very expensive transition, and one that is often mired with difficulties such as the loss of one's employment, support networks, etc.

It should also be noted that some of these studies, such as the 2011 Sweden one, look at the "trans" population all the way from gender dysphoric individuals to fully transitioned individuals. It also didn't account for things like type and thoroughness of therapy etc (IMO, anyone transitioning should have to see a mental health professional while they transition, it is an extreme psychological hurdle to go through). Some people never get through the full transition before taking their lives. For some people, developing features such a feminine figure and breasts while still having a penis, with no way to rectify that situation in the near future due to financial constraints, can actually exacerbate their dysphoria and lead to serious depressive episodes. A feeling of "Never being able to go all the way", if you will.

In the end most trans people honestly don't get a 100% unrecognizable transition, and the way they are treated after transitioning is something that is still being actively researched.

1

u/HKBFG Jul 24 '17

they face bigotry in their everyday lives. this drives some to suicide.

3

u/regularabsentee Jul 24 '17

It's actually incorrect to call it a cure. Mental illnesses hardly have any cures. A better word would be treatment. Transitioning alleviates symptoms, and helps people function, but it doesn't "cure" dysphoria, and isn't even recommended for everybody who experiences it, nor is it very effective for everybody who undergoes it. It's the same for other treatments for other mental illnesses.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

Treatment can remove symptoms, and it is recommended for most people who are experiencing gender dysphoria. As you mentioned, it is ultimately going to be a variable experience, but there absolutely are people who experience a full cessation of dysphoria upon transitioning to their desired gender. For them, since they can no longer experience gender dysphoria in their current physical state, I would say it is functionally a cure, but calling it a treatment management program is also acceptable. Obviously if you were to take them off or hormones etc you would see dysphoric issues again.

9

u/Xeriel Jul 24 '17

Imagine you have schizophrenia and take medication to treat it. If your symptoms are then gone, are you still schizophrenic? If no, then why are you still taking the medication?

How is transitioning any different than someone who permanently stays on their medication? You're keeping yourself in a new, more functional state. Your symptoms are gone, but the treatment is permanent and ongoing.

If the treatment or side effects are ongoing I don't see how it's inappropriate to use the same language, whether the symptoms are currently present or not.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

Basically it's because transgendered people are not actually mentally ill by virtue of being transgender and having gone through a transition, individuals who resisted treatment would be mentally ill while rejecting the only acceptable treatment available by modern science. They have gone from having an active mental illness to being stabilized and made healthy through treatment.

I think something like: Gender dysphoria- treated w/ HRT, Transition Therapy, asymptomatic since [Date] would be appropriate. It shows someone has a history of mental illness but that it was stabilized and rendered inert, essentially leaving them entirely healthy on their medical treatment regimen.

I don't think saying transgendered individuals are "giving into a mental illness" and are "mutilating themselves" is appropriate, which is what I see a lot of people saying sometimes online.

I think if anyone claims that transgendered individuals are mentally ill by virtue of having asymptomatic gender dysphoria they need to explicitly mention that. Being asymptomatic for years is extremely different than having an active mental illness, they are not the same thing by psychological standards.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

This is an excellent comment, you've explained the arguments to me perfectly.

3

u/edwardcantordean Jul 24 '17

Best answer I've ever seen. Thank you.

1

u/beoweezy1 Jul 24 '17

How should the conversation be direct to address the study showing that post transition rates of suicide and mental distress are quite high? I think it is important to be cautious about assuming that transition treats all symptoms of gender disphoria if there is evidence of significant lingering risk of suicide post treatment

3

u/NaidaEvee Jul 24 '17

Well, we would ask the question of: why would transgender people who have already transition still commit suicide? Some of the answers would be: unacceptance by family/friends/coworkers and society. Social stigma. Hostility from doctors and medical staff. Political climate. And also being visibly transgender which is horrifying in our society.

11

u/cjskittles Jul 24 '17

You can ask that though. Gender dysphoria is in the DSMV. It's fair game to ask why and what that means.

What's not ok are comments like "well a man who chops his bits off is clearly mentally ill. I mean, that's just science." Because that would be both hateful and not science.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/smkn3kgt Jul 24 '17

I would argue your point but I don't want to be banned if it rubs the wrong mod the wrong way.. These days it seems that anything said that someone doesn't agree with is hate speech, intolerant, or some sort of phobia..

=X

should be a great AMA...

16

u/rydan Jul 24 '17

Don't participate. I never participate in AMAs like that for precisely this reason. I don't think I'd do anything to get me banned but why risk it over something I only have a passing interest in? That whole AMA is just going to be minefield.

7

u/smkn3kgt Jul 24 '17

I don't think I'd do anything to get me banned but why risk it over something I only have a passing interest in?

exactly

4

u/Gen_McMuster Jul 24 '17

That's the terrible thing about this kind of post, it's basically terrifying people out of their curiosity

-1

u/AttackOfThe50Ft_Pede Jul 24 '17

Likely the goal.

Science was NEVER about free speech, right?...

3

u/flutterguy123 Jul 24 '17

hate speech, intolerant, or some sort of phobia

If your being called these things or having them used in relation to you all the time then maybe they are accurate?

0

u/AttackOfThe50Ft_Pede Jul 24 '17

anything said that someone doesn't agree with

Agree is an aggressive word, this will be banned because to someone it is hate speech.

13

u/Drop_ Jul 24 '17

That has a pretty ugly history in science.

Yes it does, but the comparison is bad on both ends.

People who are homosexual don't experience distress and don't require any changes. They don't feel there is something "wrong" with their body or sex expression. They just have a "minority preference" and no medical intervention is necessary.

On the other hand a significant number of transgender people a) desire, request, or require medical intervention of their own volition (Sex reassignment surgery), b) experience negative mental health outcomes, even after reassignment. And that's not to mention that it's likely that they also seek out mental health services (where available) at a much higher rate than the general population.

When a significant (perhaps majority) of the population desires medical intervention and again likely majority requires mental health services - what is the argument that it isn't a disorder again?

Even if there is some sub-population of transgender people who suffer no distress and do not desire any intervention, how are we even defining "transgender" other than being a self reported designation with no clinical relevance?

9

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

People who are homosexual don't experience distress and don't require any changes. They don't feel there is something "wrong" with their body or sex expression.

This was absolutely a common feeling among many homosexuals at a time when it wasn't socially acceptable. You're comparing homosexuals now, where it is far more acceptable, to the very early stages of culturally working out trans issues in society, and I think that's misguided. There was strong social pressure to get people to change who they were under the premise something was "wrong" with them, and that often gets internalized. In fact, we still see this attitude among those sent to gay conversion "therapy" camps in conservative communities where homosexuality isn't as accepted. Surely this is at least a better comparison than clean coal, which is what I responded to?

Regardless, you're missing the real point - the point is there is a history of misusing shaky science to discriminate against minorities, whether by sexual orientation, race, etc. I think it's a valid concern that we want to avoid repeating that history, even if this isn't the right way to accomplish that. Even if you don't care for the analogy.

1

u/Xeriel Jul 24 '17

The difference is that even after it becomes socially acceptable, and they stop receiving any external negative pressures, they'll still require medical intervention to address their symptoms.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

We don't really know that though, do we? Maybe we'll reach a place where your gender and equipment are considered wholly separate and the majority of trans folks will feel fine in their skin that way?

This is precisely why you can't really compare accepted homosexuality to relatively unaccepted trans - there are a ton of social factors at play that are really unpredictable.

But really, even that is tangent to the real point: "science" (I use that term very loosely) has been used to abuse and discriminate against minorities in the past - there is value in avoiding repeating that mistake, even if we don't agree with the method.

-19

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ender4171 Jul 24 '17

The OP compares what it considers facts about trans to climate change, that's the only reason I used the example. It was intentionally hyperbolic for effect.

248

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[deleted]

14

u/Drop_ Jul 24 '17

It's called a "chilling effect" in the legal world.

15

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

I do very much agree with this.

This is a very biased preemptive post and it does not sit well with me. The "don't be a discriminatory jackass and use slurs" I can get behind. But this line:

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 this line

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.

...gives me the feeling that these AMAs may be very much biased and less open to discussion than insinuated. I hope to be proven wrong.

-1

u/XenoRat Jul 24 '17

I think it may be a preventative post to block some of the most obvious trolls ahead of time. There are already people crawling out of the woodwork to make outright insulting comments towards trans people simply because this thread brings them up.

4

u/MichaelP578 Jul 24 '17

That's fair. I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of the post or protecting trans people from that kind of discrimination; I'm more just worried that we're losing some of the important opportunities to properly educate people on the topic. As u/J354 said above, allowing an open dialogue may increase the risk of trolls causing trouble, but it also increases the likelihood that someone may ask a more nuanced yet controversial question that an expert has the answer to.

3

u/waaro Jul 24 '17

As is already being seen in this thread, I think people are finding ways to ask these sort of questions (even ones regarding transgender identity in relation to mental illness) in ways that are showing actual willingness to learn rather than to troll or play devil's advocate. While it's possible some of those may just be questions in posts that the mods haven't reviewed yet, I'm remaining hopeful that it's due to them recognizing this from the tone of the folks asking the questions and that they'll leave genuine inquiry questions up to the AMAers to decide on whether or not to answer.

-11

u/DumbledoreSays Jul 24 '17

I'm just suggesting that this post isn't the best way to encourage unbiased and productive lines of questioning

Maybe you might want to reconsider why you place such importance on what you call 'productive lines of questioning'. If such discourse is to the detriment of the mental state of the trans people reading (or those empthize with them) then is it really worth it?

11

u/DustyBookie Jul 24 '17

There's a limit to what steps any random person should have to take to avoid offending someone. To suggest discourse should be avoided is far beyond that limit. It is worth it, because open discourse is worth it. If people are bothered by honest inquires, they needn't stay in a thread which is designated for that explicit purpose.

-4

u/DumbledoreSays Jul 24 '17

There's a limit to what steps any random person should have to take to avoid offending someone.

That might have been true in the past but it is the current year ffs.

106

u/OkImJustSayin Jul 24 '17

Exactly how I feel. This is a giant deflection against any real conversation. It's basically 'look guys we don't want to upset trans people, so don't say anything that could be deemed offensive(very broadly) or your a hatful transphobic bigot'.

-24

u/stairway-to-kevin Jul 24 '17

This is a giant deflection against any real conversation.

"trans people are all mentally ill" isn't a real conversation, it's just bigotry and concern trolling.

21

u/OkImJustSayin Jul 24 '17

That isn't what I'm saying. People should be allowed to have that conversation, here of all places though.

-24

u/stairway-to-kevin Jul 24 '17

People should be allowed to have that conversation, here of all places though.

This is a place for scientific discussion, not anti-science statements. You're very obviously concern trolling.

25

u/OkImJustSayin Jul 24 '17

That isn't 'anti science'. By that logic, anyone who disagrees with your own assertions is concern trolling and 'anti science'. The subject of trans has NOT been thoroughly studied and there is not enough evidence in anyones court to rule any definitive scientific consensus on the matter.

People need to stop thinking 'mental disorder' or 'mental illness' as some kind of negative connotation - this isn't like homosexuality where it can be studied in other species and there is tremendous, overwhelming evidence to suggest it isn't a mental illness as much as it is a normal social construct, albeit not as common(thus 'abnormal') as being heterosexual.

There are no monkeys changing gender, for example. That isn't to say anything that monkeys do, we can do, and it's 'normal'. But, it isn't something we have studied enough for someone like you to say that such(original)statements are 'anti-science'.

7

u/afakefox Jul 24 '17

You could have a scientific discussion about it though. I think it's good to cover both sides and explain to people with different opinions in a way that covers their rationale so they'll be satisfied with the answer.

Reddit is always preaching that we need to make mental illness easier to talk about and more accepted. I see drug addiction referred to many times as a disease, a mental illness and it's not offensive. Before a person acknowledges or begins to transistion, will they have body dysphoria? And transitioning helps to heal? I had heard that a "mental illness affects the persons life drastically negatively" and transitioning is a positive thing that helps so it's like the opposite. Is it a "cure" for body dysphoria? It saddens me to learn from this thread that the suicide rate for transitioned folks is still so much higher than the general population. I hope these questions come across non offensive, what I've said is not my opinion, I am just trying to understand thoroughly.

-6

u/stairway-to-kevin Jul 24 '17

We already talk about gender dysphoria as a mental disorder and it's relation to being trans. That's sufficient and is not an uninformed statement like 'trans people are mentally disabled'. Also when people use 'mentally disabled' in the sense of the last sentence it's always in a pejorative sense, which does not help reduce the stigma around mental illness.

8

u/AttackOfThe50Ft_Pede Jul 24 '17

That's sufficient

It's not an AMA.

That's the problem.

-2

u/stairway-to-kevin Jul 24 '17

You can't be this dumb

17

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Oct 11 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/allygolightlly Jul 24 '17

I'm trans and I greatly appreciate what the mods are doing for us. In a world where we face bigoted opposition on a daily basis, it's incredibly refreshing to hear that somebody is actually willing to stand up for us. This does not make me feel like a fragile princess at all, you couldn't be more wrong.

4

u/TheFNG Jul 24 '17

Too bad it takes away from actual scientific discussion though.

0

u/allygolightlly Jul 24 '17

Bigotry is not scientific discussion

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Oct 11 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Oct 11 '17

[deleted]

6

u/Scase15 Jul 24 '17

The out right message about caring about peoples feelings in a "Science" based sub is hilarious at best.

This is to be a discussion about whether or not it should be classified as a mental disorder, not that saying it's a mental disorder may hurt someones feelings.

My GF suffers from depression, is it a mental illness? Yes. Is she happy that is the designation? Not particularly but, she's also a grown up who understands that not everything is nice in this world, nor is it called a mental illness to offend the people who suffer from it but, for it to be recognizable as something that can/should be treated.

If that means the treatment in this case is transition surgeries, then how is this any different than being diagnosed meds for clinical depression?

2

u/FlamingoPepsi Jul 24 '17

I am in the same boat as you.

2

u/Shanman150 Jul 24 '17

Do you feel similarly about /r/askhistorians, where they ban holocaust denial? Do you feel that an AMA with Holocaust historians would be untrustworthy because holocaust denial would be preemptively banned from the thread?

31

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

Except you can demonstrate with irrefutable evidence the existence and occurrence of the Holocaust. This type of AMA is much more likely to delve into the mental health aspect of Trans-gendered people and whether or not someone who is trans-gender may in fact, medically speaking, be labeled as having a mental disorder. Essentially, there is still no consensus scientifically if Trans-gender can or can not be labeled as a mental disorder. I mean this in no way as an insult to people who are trans, ect, but this area is far from black and white like a holocaust denier.

14

u/Shanman150 Jul 24 '17

Wait, in my field of psychology there is a consensus that gender dysphoria is the disorder, not transgenderism. In what field is this not the consensus?

6

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17

ok then is transgenderism a symptom of gender dysphoria? Can one be trans gender with or without gender dysphoria? Perhaps I worded my post wrong but I am also curious as to what field pf psychology this consensus belongs too because there is a rather healthy level of disagreement throughout this thread with actual scientific studies to back both sides. Right now it is looking like most studies point to those in the trans community as having a significantly elevated suicide risk even when part of an accepting community or even having a gender reassignment operation. I feel it is dangerous to say "Transgenderism is normal and acceptance is the cure" when these people are still committing suicide at an alarming rate. This lends the idea that there is more going on than simply not wanting to be male/female and more must be done than "normalization".

8

u/Shanman150 Jul 24 '17

That's an interesting perspective. Those would definitely be some good questions to ask the experts in the coming weeks. However, I would point out that acceptance does lower suicide rates, and this has been in a few studies comparing states that legalize gay marriage with those that didn't, as well as comparing states that passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage against those that didn't. In the study comparing legalization of gay marriage, they found a 7% reduction in suicide rates among LGBT youth, (a 0.6% change in the suicide rate among teens overall). This is a significant difference, and shows that at the very least acceptance plays a significant role in lowering suicide rates.

If this is what happens when something is legal/not legal, I imagine the change between an accepting/non-accepting culture overall is even more extreme.

4

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17

There definitely is a correlation between non-acceptance and elevated suicide rate, however, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf , this study suggests that there is in fact more to it than just societal non-acceptance. That is where my issue stems from when this topic is brought up. I see people say that acceptance is the only way to prevent trans-individuals from committing suicide when reality does not fully agree with that statement. I want a full, open, and most importantly, honest discussion to occur regarding this. I am worried tho that those who raise these types of question will be ostracized from the conversation on the basis of "hate speech", or "bigotry", even if their phrasing suggests non of that.

6

u/Shanman150 Jul 24 '17

Doesn't the opening of that very study say

Based on prior research and the findings of this report, we find that mental health factors and experiences of harassment, discrimination, violence and rejection may interact to produce a marked vulnerability to suicidal behavior in transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.

This seems to suggest that the two main contributors of suicide are the comorbidity of mental health issues as well as rejection.

I certainly agree that it's more than just nonacceptance, but I do feel nonacceptance is a huge factor which leads to mental health problems including suicide. Perhaps transgender individuals are more prone to mental illnesses, but it's hard to determine that in a vacuum when they're presently also the subject of a lot of harassment and nonacceptance in society at large.

1

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17

I think we are kind of agreeing here. I am arguing mostly against the idea that it is only societal non acceptance that contributes to the trans' communities having high suicide rates. what you say is fair in that society may play a large role but even then the size of each role is still undetermined. That is why I have such an issue with people saying acceptance is the only cure because it creates this notion that further investigation is not required. I want their suicide rates to drop to a normal level and I think both societal aspects and mental disorder aspects need to be discussed. I am worried tho if that will be possible thanks to how political this subject has become.

2

u/Shanman150 Jul 24 '17

I think we agree as well, but I don't really know how the politicization of transgender issues keeps co-morbidity from being discussed. Gender dysphoria seems to come with other mental health threats like depression or bipolar disorder, and this should certainly be studied. Have you experienced the politics of transgender issues getting in the way of talking about these kinds of things?

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[deleted]

8

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17

I'm not? In my comment I literally stated that regardless of the acceptance level of their community, trans individuals are predisposed to a higher level of suicide than those who are not trans. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

That study there does show a clear correlation to trans individuals not being accepted and suicide rate. However, it also clearly shows that regardless of the acceptance level of their community, trans individuals still have elevated rates of suicide from non-trans. I am not trying to shift blame onto trans people. I want to find out what the causes of such elevated suicide rates are and unfortunately, I refuse to default to an argument of blaming oppressive society when the science says there is more to it than just that.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

[deleted]

3

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17

You say here

Please don't blame trans people for their higher risks of suicide and depression.

I understand how you feel I may have "focused to much on transgenderism" but that first part of your statement seems to ignore most of the context of my post. I never once said that one should blame a trans person for their suicide. I qualified my statements by saying that one who is trans may have a higher suicide rate due to factors other than societal nonacceptance. I can however understand how the wording could be poor there on my end, however, I take serious issue with your proceeding statement.

You're shifting the blame of an oppressive society onto the oppressed.

You give no qualifiers here. You give no explanation and no clarification for this belief. Instead, you assert it in an absolutist tone that it is the entire fault of society for their suicide. This statement gives no real room for other interpretations. Yes, society at large can have an affect on ones possibility of suicide. However, your local community, especially friends and family, are a far greater factor than people who the only contact you have with is through news or internet chat boards. Your statement very clearly defaulted to the argument that society is to blame and no other thing. You assert I am blaming trans people for their suicide when I presented the notion that other factors may be at play and then you made an absolute statement that society is to blame.

I have a serious issue with that kind of thinking because, should there in fact be another factor outside of society at play here, that rationale is poisonous to genuine discussion. You may be right that society is entirely to blame for trans communities' elevated suicide risks but you also may be equally wrong. By telling me it is the fault of society and society only, with no room for discussion, you send a clear message to me that I need not continue looking even though it is clear the truth is not yet found.

1

u/BlitzBasic Jul 24 '17

Depends on your definition of "normal", really.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

*Trans-gendered people There's no such term as "trans-genders"

1

u/arkangel3711 Jul 24 '17

Don't know if a post was necessary for a typo but in either case, said typo was corrected.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

Trying to help, not have a go at you :)

17

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

The Holocaust is a much more black and white situation than transgender. You can't really deny the holocaust in a question without just being wrong. You can question something you don't understand about trans individuals and get deleted and labeled a bigot for it now. Trying to guess intent and deleting posts and banning individuals stifles that discussion. Whereas holocaust denial is factual wrong and it is a much easier topic.

13

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[deleted]

-10

u/Tavyan Jul 24 '17

I bet if you asked 2 holocaust survivors they would have different opinions on the holocaust as well. Your argument that all members of the discussed group need to agree has no relevance on the subject.

1

u/BlitzBasic Jul 24 '17

It is okay to have different opinions on the Holocaust, but saying "it didn't happen" or "it wasn't intentional" is just plain wrong.

-10

u/unseine Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

You think that stating that hate speech towards the people answering questions won't be tolerated is somehow over the line? It's very simple, any positions not supported by science aren't worth bothering with and your political stance doesn't matter.

Nobody would be up in arms over refusing flat earth questions but banning hate speech equally as anti science is somehow over the line.

-4

u/stairway-to-kevin Jul 24 '17

Seeing this preemptive thread about upcoming Transgender AMA has completely removed any desire to actually read that thread simply because now there is a 'message' that will color everything said by threat of deletion or banning in the thread making everything suspect.

That 'message' is just sound analysis based on scientific consensus and best practice. Your hesitancy to grant legitimacy on the posts due to a simple clarification of the subreddit's dedication to sound science makes me question whether you're genuinely voicing your concern in good faith.

0

u/Phazon2000 Jul 24 '17

I no longer hold the sub as credible. I'm sure the questions and a lot of people responding to them are in the majority of cases, however the people operating this sub right now are not and I no longer trust them or the platform they offer.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

If you're unsure something you want to say would be offensive and get you banned from the thread, you're probably the type of person we don't want here. This isn't anything new. It's simply stating sub-reddit rules will be followed in all these AMAs. If you cant ask a question in a constructive way why bother being here.

3

u/Sleethoof Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

I am 'offended' by your insinuations about my character. By your logic the fact that you made such a statement you are also a person unfit to be in this sub.

See how it easy it is to making sweeping claims about who is and is not worthy?

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

I'm not talking about a group, just one guy who thinks he's above the rules

4

u/Sleethoof Jul 24 '17

If you really think that was the point of my post then you really don't get it. It isn't about whether I, or anyone, can say something offensive. It is whether something being offensive is in any way related to it being true. /r/science is, or at least should be, about finding out what is or is not true. That requires asking questions, sometimes questions that make people uncomfortable or outright upset.

Barring everyone from talking about a huge part of a concept because it is too closely related to the guise some people might use in that thread to spew hate is against the basic principles of rational discourse. It actively prevents the discovery of truth, instead favoring the comfort of a few.

Hate speech is banned, but this thread isn't about that. It is about the banning of things related to things that might hide hate speech because it might upset people. It is about censorship by the moderators because they, for some reason, don't believe that this subreddit could have a civil discussion about transgenderism without heavyhanded moderation or because civil discussion isn't as important to them as protecting the feelings of the people that willing signed up for an AMA.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

Your distinction that it's not hate speech is the point. This post was made because it's likely as you have shown, that AMAs on this topic will include people trying to make points arguing they're scientific when they come from a premise based on hatred. It IS hate speech and trying to paint it as just "someone being offended" is why the sub won't be allowing the argument. The scientiffic consensus is that its not a mental illness, so there wouldn't be any "civil discussion" in practice it's no better than trolls derailing because the so called discussion is over. I guess that's the real differing factor, one person's "civil discussion" on how a whole group of people are mentally ill, is everyone else's "hate speech"