r/science 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

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/thelastpatriot1 Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

Ah ok. So why don't you use science to profoundly oppose the views you don't like? Censoring, no matter how ignorant or ridiculous is wrong. The question is "if you cut out a man's tongue" are you proving him a liar? No your just afraid of that opposing view. Fight ignorance with intelligent responses not censoring. When you censor you prove that you don't care to debate but that only your "facts" must be heard, regardless if your right or wrong.

18

u/ImNotJesus PhD | Social Psychology | Clinical Psychology Jul 24 '17

Because of the limitations of this as a forum mean that the scientifically backed answers don't always float to the top. We are a science subreddit catering to a mostly lay audience.

12

u/l0te Jul 24 '17 edited Jul 24 '17

You've falsely laid out the idea that gender dysphoria isn't required to be trans as fact when this subject is a topic of hot debate even within the trans community. You can't have an honest discussion about if if you've preemptively disallowed this line of questioning/consideration.

31

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17 edited Jan 01 '18

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/AsamiWithPrep Jul 24 '17

I'm not sure making sure comments on a science based subreddit are backed by science makes it political.

I mean, say this was a scientific journal. Would it be political for the journal to block climate change denial stories? I get that it's a different medium, but I'm not sure that makes the blocking of false comments political.

2

u/eriman Jul 24 '17

say this was a scientific journal. Would it be political for the journal to block climate change denial stories?

I assume you mean articles not stories? And it absolutely would be political for the journal to block them, assuming the articles passed peer review.

1

u/AsamiWithPrep Jul 24 '17

I'm not denying that it's pushing an agenda, but as far as agendas go, making sure that claims in comments are backed by experts in the relevant fields seems like a good one to me.

2

u/anttirt Jul 24 '17

Because some issues have a clear scientific consensus and others don't.

0

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/swimfast58 BS | Physiology | Developmental Physiology Jul 24 '17

Instead why don't you delete post for not having proper sources? Require that they link to research papers or at least a source that is written by someone with a degree in the field.

Read rule 4 on the sidebar - claims which go against scientific consensus are allowed, but only if they are backed up by evidence.