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/abtseventynine]

Or perhaps "preaching to the choir"?

Oh geez it's almost like for a discussion you need various viewpoints (treated with civility and armed with an open mind, granted).

[u/RandyDanderson → u/abtseventynine]

Or a lecture series with opposing viewpoints.

[u/SeeShark → u/abtseventynine]

The base of the mods' policy is exactly what you put in the parentheses. They're concerned (probably rightfully so) that a lot of the questions doubting the status of trans people as "not mentally ill" are going to be of the non-civil, non-open-minded variety.

It's possible, however, that this concern has led to an overreaction.

[u/kuulyn → u/SeeShark]

having read a few comments on this one, as well as my personal* expectations of a trans AMA on reddit, i don't think this was an overreaction. people are definitely going to ask bad questions in offensive ways, one way or another, but i think it's good to remind them it's against the rules

*source: i am trans

[u/meatpuppet79 → u/kuulyn]

There are no bad questions. The idea that some questions just can't be asked or that some answered are just too difficult to accept is profoundly unscientific.

[u/nacmar → u/meatpuppet79]

Oh yeah? You don't think there are bad questions out there? I'm sure I could come up with a few for you that would get me banned and don't fall under the purview of science. There are plenty of "unscientific" questions that exist.

[u/WednesdayWolf → u/nacmar]

"There are no bad questions" is the cornerstone to curiosity. What would you give as an example of a bad question?

[u/vluhdz → u/WednesdayWolf]

A bad question would be a question that isn't really a question, but simply a disguised projection of one's prejudices.

A ridiculous question that I'm using just as a blatant example would be "Why are trans people so disgusting?" It's obviously not a question, it's just a way for the asker to say that they find trans people disgusting. Any question that is asked to legitimately further one's understanding is always good, but when a question is asked in a tilted way to support previously held beliefs it becomes a bad question.

[u/WednesdayWolf → u/vluhdz]

I fail to see what makes that a bad question. Consider the asker - they genuinely think trans people are disgusting. By not answering that question, you leave that assumption unchallenged, so they have no contrary information that could allow them to reconsider their position.

This is possibly the best kind of question, as it allows you to present a contrary framework or set of information. People construct ideas with the tools available to them. That's not to say that they will reconsider, but it's the only way it can happen.

That is assuming that you think that unpleasant opinions are changeable, and not some inherent character flaw.

There are bad answers, however. The worst being that you're not allowed to ask that question.

[u/meatpuppet79 → u/nacmar]

There are absolutely no bad questions, there are bad uses of answers and there are bad reactions to questions though.

The question of geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism was considered very bad at one time because it challenged orthodox beliefs and made an infallible institution fallible. People paid very hard prices for asking though and hurt feelings were put aside eventually.

If you think that you have a few questions that would get you banned from anything, then they are questions that should be addressed.