あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]baserace 45ポイント46ポイント  (70子コメント)

Is there a science sub you can suggest that is less interested in identity politics and the censorship that often follows, and more interested in hypothesis, exploration, and truth? Y'know, 'science'.

In the spirit of scientific method, can you clearly define 'derogatory' in this context? Is disagreeing with your official stance and explaining why derogatory? Also you use 'hate-speech' but then use 'derogatory'. Are you stating that anything derogatory will be considered hate-speech? For those members of the /r/science community who believe that transgender is a mental illness more than anything, what space are they given here, again in the scientific spirit, to discuss this?

Thank you.

[–]ImNotJesusGrad Student | Social Psychology 32ポイント33ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is there a science sub you can suggest that is less interested in identity politics and the censorship that often follows, and more interested in hypothesis, exploration, and truth? Y'know, 'science'.

I believe /r/scienceuncensored was set up for that reason btu you're welcome to make another. However, this is a question of science as much as protons are. The fact that debates around trans rights are often politicised doesn't change that. We remove bigotry in this sub and transphobia applies.

For those members of the /r/science community who believe that transgender is a mental illness more than anything, what space are they given here, again in the scientific spirit, to discuss this?

None. 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 is treated the same way as if you wanted to make anti-vax, anti-global warming or anti-gravity comments.

To be clear, the "scientific spirit" is using empirical evidence and theory to guide knowledge based on debate academic journals. Yelling at each other in a comments section of a forum is in no way "scientific discussion". If you wish to act in the "scientific spirit" I encourage you to do the work and publish something on the topic. Until then, your opinions are just that - opinions.

[–]prudemare 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

However, this is a question of science as much as protons are.

I'm sorry, I'm confused... what is as settled as protons? Put another way, what does "this" refer to?

[–]Jovianmoons [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

-if you wish to act in the "scientific spirit" I encourage you to do the work and publish something on the topic. Until then, your opinions are just that - opinions-

So because I'm not a scientist I can neither read nor comment on scientific related topics. That seems kind of bigoted.

[–]natePhD | Organic Chemistry[S,M] 20ポイント21ポイント  (54子コメント)

who believe that transgender is a mental illness

This is an opinion that is not supported by any major psychological organization, and isn't supported in the scientific literature.

We will remove comments to that end, and if they are made in an uncivil manner, we will ban the user, who is pushing ideology and not science.

The definition of derogatory is easily found, we know it when we see if, I suggest you stay well away if it's unclear.

[–]randomquestionsaske 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

No offense, but it seems like this sub is what's pushing the ideology.

If this was so clear cut, I doubt the scientific community would be having so many issues here.

Just because something isn't an illness or a disease doesn't mean we should treat those people poorly. But saying it's not seems nothing but detrimental for research into those communities.

[–]baserace 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

The definition of derogatory is easily found, we know it when we see if, I suggest you stay well away if it's unclear.

Well this thread has been made in the name of ideology, identity politics and safe spaces, so I think it's safe to assume that what an identity politician means by 'derogatory' may be quite difference from what your average person and /r/science subscriber deems derogatory.

Again, quite disturbing that you'd use this to silence people, to police and second-guess their own speech, by telling them to stay well clear. This is against the very fundamentals of open scientific inquiry.

[–]faction12 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What don't you get? Your beliefs are wrong. You're a science denialist, don't pretend you're here in the name of "scientific enquiry." Take it to /r/conspiracy with the rest of the flat earthers (which is what you're equivalent to.).

[–]TheCid 16ポイント17ポイント  (9子コメント)

Isn't Gender Dysphoria literally in the DSM?

That would seem to me to fit the scientific definition of "mental illness". This seems like a political decision masquerading as a scientific one.

[–]Virgadays 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Isn't Gender Dysphoria literally in the DSM?

Gender dysphoria is not the same as being transgender though.

Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress that is caused by having the 'wrong' primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Once a person transitions he or she may no longed suffer from gender dysphoria, but still is transgender.

[–]JustHereForTheMemes 28ポイント29ポイント  (4子コメント)

I believe you may be confusing gender dysphoria and transgenderism. The dsm 5 is quite explicit about the difference and I'd recommend checking it out if you're curious about the topic.

[–]jabberwockxeno -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd like to look into that but I don't know what DSM 5 is, can you explain?

[–]MusicMan5000 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's only in the DSM so that certain surgeries can be covered by insurance.

[–]please_pm_me_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I had a really good reply to that guy all written out but you got to him before I could post. Anyway, thanks for the good work y'all do here. I know its a tough road being a mod.

[–]StumbleOn 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Is there a science sub you can suggest that is less interested in identity politics and the censorship that often follows, and more interested in hypothesis, exploration, and truth? Y'know, 'science'.

This one is a good place to start.

When the scientific consensus concludes something and you just don't feel it's right, that is your first clue that you are engaging in a political opinion and not a scientific one. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

[–]MonkAang 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a problem with a conclusion made by "the scientific consensus", if you can invoke meaningful discussion and debate through why you disagree on that particular conclusion (e.g providing newly found or undiscussed information.)

Nothing in science is final, it is constantly changing and in my opinion, under no circumstances should any topic at all be prohibited from discussion. Obviously no sane person believes that hate speech is a good thing or wants it, but simply "disagreeing with the consensus" is in no way indicative of your opinion being politically influenced.

[–]StumbleOn -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a problem with a conclusion made by "the scientific consensus",

Gonna stop ya there.

You have willfully ignored all the context in this thread. The rest of your post is literally irrelevant to what I said and in the context that I said it. Stop being pedantic and ignoring what is blindingly obvious.

That you chose my comment out of all the others in this thread tells me quite a bit about you.

[–]MonkAang 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure exactly what "it tells you about me", I scrolled far down to see what people are discussing deeper in to the thread.

I haven't ignored the context at all. What I said is directly relevant to what baserace asked. You weren't making a statement to the overall thread, you were responding to him.

[–]legayredditmodditors -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

what space are they given here, again in the scientific spirit, to discuss this?

Apparently none, as of today.

[–]beerybeardybear -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This post is ignorant nonsense and I hope you eventually realize that.