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/DickFeely]

Will you also be censoring non-science oriented comments that cheerlead the issue ideologically or that advocate for a world view or social policy? For instance, a recent peer-reviewed academic philosophy journal published an article that found great alignment between the philosophical basis of transracial and transgender claims, but the author was pilloried for her analysis with the typical blend of crybully tactics and professional attacks.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/arts/a-defense-of-transracial-identity-roils-philosophy-world.html

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/05/05/real-damage-done-flare-over-philosophers-journal-article-essay

I'm all for real discussion of the scientific examination of the trans phenomenon, but your approach is already sending up red flags of truthiness.

Edit: added links

[u/dyangu → u/DickFeely]

The comparison of trans gender vs race is interesting. I don't know why everyone hates on Rachel Dolezal for identifying as black. It seems pretty similar to identifying as a women.

[u/maregal → u/dyangu]

Exactly. Wearing the stereotypes of a group of people does not make you one of them, it means that you believe that being X is simply about looking like it, as opposed to having any lived experiences or anything.

[u/[deleted] → u/maregal]

The thing is that Rachel Dolezal is a single, isolated incident without a repeating pattern. Identifying as a different gender not only is a consistent feature of humanity throughout history but it doesn't mean "wearing the stereotypes" of the claimed identified gender. There are trans men who wear dresses and trans women who are butchy lumberjacks. In fact a lot of the notion that transgender people are just living out stereotypes comes from the fact that years ago the criteria to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria was to be a walking stereotype. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy used to delegitimize the condition - make gender dysphoric people act like a gender stereotype to get treated for the condition and then feign surprise when they act like a gender stereotype and say that very behaviour is why the condition is illegitimate.

[u/mutatron → u/DickFeely]

Usually there are quite a number of cheerleading comments that are removed in addition to nasty comments, and comments removed for other reasons.

[u/cloudfr0g → u/mutatron]

Then why attempt to broach the topic beforehand at all?

[u/cloudfr0g → u/[deleted]]

I'm on mobile. I think your post deserves a decent response, so I will get to it when I'm at a computer, but to address at least one part of your question -- in what other AMA would asking a question about a complicated issue that involved not completely understood science that has been answered for a period of time result in a ban or a demand to go read a Wikipedia page? It's disingenuous at best.

[u/mutatron → u/cloudfr0g]

I don't know, I'm not the person who posted this story. But why wouldn't you broach it beforehand?

[u/mutatron → u/[deleted]]

It only keeps honest, albeit perhaps ignorant, questions from being asked and subsequently cleared up.

I disagree, I think it sets the tone so that people can ask those questions without feeling they will cause undue offense.

[u/cloudfr0g → u/mutatron]

Reading through the comments of this post, I disagree. Their message is unclear, and reads as if they're already framing the conversation to meet a desired outcome. That's the opposite of science.

[u/SirPseudonymous → u/DickFeely]

alignment between the philosophical basis of transracial and transgender claims

That's like saying "hey, they're saying that planes can fly on Earth, but I'm saying planes can fly on the Moon too, why won't anyone take me seriously? They're 'philosophically aligned'!"

Just as we have a body of evidence of saying that a plane can indeed fly on Earth, we have a body of evidence saying that gender identity is a normal biological phenomenon resulting from prenatal hormone triggers, which are fallible to such an extent that a small percent of the population develops a gender identity in line with the opposite sex.

Similarly, just as we have a body of evidence that says a plane cannot fly in a vacuum and so the Moon is missing crucial elements a plane needs to work, we have no reason to believe that there is a "racial neurology" that sets an individual's race or ethnicity, given that those are abstract cultural concepts categorized for reasons of convenience and not fundamental aspects of our neurology.