jump to content
my subreddits
. . .more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on Submitted on
1,039 points (67% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

Welcome to r/science

unsubscribesubscribe11,258,365 readerssubscribers
3,813 users here now

Submission Requirements

  1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research articles or a brief media summary
  2. No summaries of summaries, reviews or popular reposts (over 100 upvotes)
  3. Research must be less than 6 months old
  4. No sensationalized titles, all titles must include the model where applicable
  5. No blogspam, images, videos, infographics
  6. All submissions must be flaired

Comment Rules

  1. On-topic. No memes/jokes/etc.
  2. No abusive/offensive/spam comments.
  3. Non-professional personal anecdotes may be removed
  4. Arguments dismissing established scientific theories must contain substantial, peer-reviewed evidence
  5. No medical advice!
For detailed explanation of these rules, see our Submission and Comment Guidelines. Repeat or flagrant offenders may be banned.

Reddit Science AMA Submission Guide

New to reddit? Click here!

Get flair in /r/science

Previous Science AMA's

Upcoming AMAs (All times and dates are USA East Coast Time)

Date Time (Eastern Time - USA) Person Description
25 May-1pm PLOS Science Wednesday: Nick Ruktanonchai and Cori Ruktanonchai Malaria Mapping
26 May-10am AskScience AMA: CERN Scientists Latest release (300 TB) of Open Data from the CMS Experiment at CERN's LHC
26 May-1pm Kate Greenberg, M.D. Transgender health
27 May-1pm James Lee MD Thyroid Awareness Day
30 May-7am The Adept Project Energy Efficient Parallel Computing
31 May-11am American Chemical Society AMA
Make sure to check out our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience
created by speza community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
discuss this ad on reddit
message the moderators

MODERATORS

1038
1039
1040
submitted by natePhD | Organic Chemistry[M]
/r/science has a long-standing zero-tolerance policy towards hate-speech, which extends to people who are transgender as well. Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness, and derogatory comments about transgender people will be treated on par with sexism and racism, typically resulting in a ban without notice.
With this in mind, please represent yourselves well during our AMA on transgender health tomorrow.
top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best (suggested)
[–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology[M] [score hidden] - stickied comment (32 children)
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. 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'1 is treated the same way as if you wanted to make anti-vax, anti-global warming or anti-gravity comments.
To be clear, 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 There is a difference between being trans and having gender dysphoria.
[–]EndsInATangent 223 points224 points225 points  (158 children)
So I understand that transgenderism is not a mental illness.
But gender dysphoria is still considered one, right? It's as much a mental illness as depression. Or are we going to split hairs and say it is just something that is normal but causes depression?
[–]sirjuicybooty 145 points146 points147 points  (62 children)
Not trying to offend, but what's the difference? I was under the impression thay transgenderism was a product of dysphoria. Am I wrong in thinking that?
[–]An_Lochlannach 111 points112 points113 points  (47 children)
From what I can tell from the dozens of seperate discussions going on in this thread, the "dysphoria" aspect of a male feeling female or vice versa is indeed considered a mental illness, as dysphoria suggests mental stress.
However, a transgender person who has made the change (be it by operation or otherwise) to become the person they believe they are, is said to have gotten over that dysphoria and therefore isn't suffering from any kind of illness.
Tl;dr: The struggle before the transformation is an illness, the transformation itself and the aftermath are not.
Or at least that's how I'm interpreting the general consensus here.
[–]darkflash26 30 points31 points32 points  (14 children)
what if after the transformation, they are still not happy/ over their dysphoria?
[–]ReasonablyBadass [score hidden]  (2 children)
Then their problem probably wasn't with their gender and they "misdiagnosed" the reason of their unhappiness.
Or they were a different gender and depressed.
Or a hundred other possibilities.
People are complicated.
[–]An_Lochlannach [score hidden]  (0 children)
Again, only basing this on my interpretation of the "accepted consensus" here, that situation would conclude that the "illness" was something else in the first place, so a misdiagnosis.... or there's more than one illness/disorder, so an incomplete diagnosis.
[–]webtwopointno [score hidden]  (0 children)
sadly if they are still uncomfortable in their bodies there are not many more options..
[–]phorgewerk [score hidden]  (1 child)
This can happen (and sorry its 2 am and I have a trip in the morning so I cant be arsed to cite it right now) somewhere around 1% of the time post transition. It's almost always a misdiagnosis or stems from a combination of societal pressure and losing family/friend support groups by transitioning.
[–]RainbowPhoenixGirl [score hidden]  (0 children)
Dysphoria doesn't just go away when you transition. It's not just the result of your body being wrong. It's also the result of being in a society that both actively stigmatises and mistreats trans people, and also doesn't think it's doing anything wrong.
Also, even "after" your transition (not transformation, and I say "after" because it's never really over), you're still going to be thinking "sigh... I can't ever have this, I can't ever have that". Trans women still won't have a uterus, trans men still won't have testes. You're never completely how you need to be, and that's still going to cause you dysphoria.
Many trans people don't have dysphoria at all. They know who they are, but they don't experience pain as a result of who they were born. They just know that they need to be something different. That's perfectly valid, and you can be trans without being dysphoric.
[–]GadflyIII [score hidden]  (3 children)
As a lay person on the subject, this does not really make sense....
So a person feels as though they are of a different gender than thier biological sex, then they have dysphoria, which is a mental illness, but if/when they change genders and then that person no longer has dysphoria?
Isn't the gender change just treating the symptoms of the mental illness? Surely the underlying cause is still present is it not?
Put another way... if a person has chronic depression, and is treated by an anti-depression medication, they the symptoms may be treated, but if the medication is stopped then the symptoms return as the underlying cause remains. Is that not the case here as well?
[–]JesusIsMyLord666 [score hidden]  (1 child)
It's not allways that simple. A sex change won't allways give desired results. Many will even feel worse after surgery.
[–]thedavidcarney [score hidden]  (0 children)
Wow, thank you. I like to consider myself open-minded but the "whats the difference" that above stated was really hanging me up on trans issues. This makes perfect sense, thank you for the explanation.
[–]Abysinian 22 points23 points24 points  (1 child)
It's the other way around. A person can suffer from gender dysphoria as a result of being transgender, but a lot of transgender people don't suffer from it. To be diagnosed with gender dysphoria (the mental illness) there are specific criteria, and simply being transgender isn't enough.
[–]sirjuicybooty [score hidden]  (0 children)
Could it be possible for the person suffering from dsyphoria could be gendering certain activities? So if I were a man who wanted to wear a dress and makeup, things that are generally associated with the female gender, could I simply think I should be a woman because I enjoy these things? Please excuse my limited knowledge on the subject.
[–]ieatglue44 29 points30 points31 points  (7 children)
Gender dysphoria, as I understand it, is considered an illness, for which the most effective treatment is the transitioning process (which is very long and arduous).
[–]white_n_mild [score hidden]  (6 children)
To me that just seems to allow these people to get help they might not get if we never categorized their condition as a disability.
[–]cfb362 [score hidden]  (2 children)
that's right. we really just need it in the DSM so that we can prove that the treatment is part of necessary medical treatment. otherwise, the insurance companies might call sex reassignment surgery 'cosmetic' when it's often (but not always) necessary bc of dysphoria
[–]phorgewerk [score hidden]  (0 children)
It also has the flipside of excluding some people who genuinely need to transition. It's a very common phenomenon in the trans community to be denied care because Joe Q Therapist in Hometown USA doesn't think they are trans enough and will set arbitrary and sometimes moving goals before formally diagnosing Gender Dysphoria. Luckily it's been getting much better in recent years, but I feel incredibly bad for anyone transitioning in rural areas
[–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology [score hidden]  (1 child)
But gender dysphoria is still considered one, right? It's as much a mental illness as depression. Or are we going to split hairs and say it is just something that is normal but causes depression?
Right. So being a transgender person makes you obviously more likely to suffer from gender dysphoria but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. You're more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety if you're neurotic or introverted but that doesn't mean that neuroticism or introversion are, in and of themselves, mental illnesses.
[–]Decency [score hidden]  (0 children)
So being a transgender person makes you obviously more likely to suffer from gender dysphoria
I think you have your causation reversed here, no?
[–]fsmpastafarian9PhD | Clinical Psychology 57 points58 points59 points  (35 children)
Yes, gender dysphoria is a mental disorder (essentially, being transgender plus being significantly distressed by it). Many transgender people do not meet criteria for gender dysphoria though, which is why being transgender is not a mental illness.
[–]bobsagetfullhouse 56 points57 points58 points  (28 children)
So in order for something to be a mental illness you have to be distressed by it? If I have schizophrenia but I enjoy my hallucinations am I still not mentally ill?
[–]whoremongering 30 points31 points32 points  (5 children)
You have to exhibit some social or occupational dysfunction to get the diagnosis:
"For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning, such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset..." See Table 1 for current criteria
This gets at the debate of what an 'illness' really is, which can be somewhat subjective.
[–]alexanderalright [score hidden]  (3 children)
Gender dysphoria
I don't think it's too much of a debate. I like things to be extremely clean and orderly, much beyond what is 'normal'. However, I don't miss work, social activities, or harm myself because of this desire. I will take breaks between work tasks to make sure a pan is clean, but a pan not being perfectly clean doesn't prevent me from going to work. That's why I have Obsessive Compulsive Delight instead of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Distress isn't very subjective, however society has a way of telling people they need to unnecessarily deal with distress.
[–]DarkTussin [score hidden]  (0 children)
Dysphoria is literally defined as:
a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.
Gender dysphoria is, by definition, distressing.
[–]allysonwonderlandGrad Student|Experimental Psychology 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
There is also an aspect of impaired functioning that is part of a diagnosis (e.g., you may not seem to have a problem with your symptoms - like some psychopaths - but they interfere with your ability to function in daily life).
[–]fsmpastafarian9PhD | Clinical Psychology 15 points16 points17 points  (13 children)
Yes, for something to be a mental illness it has to either cause significant distress or impairment. This is the case for all mental disorders. If someone experiences hallucinations and does not find them distressing, and they do not impair their functioning in their life, and they don't have any other symptoms that cause distress/impairment, then no, they would not meet criteria for schizophrenia.
[–]young_war [score hidden]  (2 children)
That's pretty fascinating, so if I have symptoms of multiple personality disorder, as long as it's not causing significant distress in my life, I would not be considered a person that has the said disorder? I would think that'd still fall under mental illness, just simply to a lesser degree.
[–]spazboy200 5 points6 points7 points  (36 children)
So what is the difference between transgenderism and gender dysphoria?
[–]Abysinian 12 points13 points14 points  (13 children)
Being transgender is identifying with a gender that doesn't match your biological sex/the one you were assigned at birth. Gender dysphoria occurs when a person experiences significant suffering in regards to their being transgender, such as profound unhappiness (to the point of depression and suicide at times) with their body and other aspects of themselves (as it doesn't match the gender they identify with). It's important to note that not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria.
[–]Penis-Butt 10 points11 points12 points  (12 children)
Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe people who experience significant dysphoria (distress) with the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.
edit: my emphasis on "distress." It's not an illness without the distress. This is common in psychology; people with OCD-like symptoms don't have the mental illness of OCD until a diagnosis determines that it distresses them or significantly harms their quality of life.
[–]GLITCHGORE 4 points5 points6 points  (8 children)
Gender dysphoria is often experienced by transgender individuals, although the feelings experienced as a result of gender dysphoria (and the intensity of those feelings) does vary from person to person. They are, of course, negative feelings.
I as a transgender man experience dysphoria in relation to my breasts - in my case, I want to be rid of them altogether. However, I do not really have any desire to augment my genitalia, and I don't experience much dysphoria in relation to them; my desire to leave them as they are is a result of scarce technology in the realm of female-to-male affirmation surgery for transgender men. There is a good possibility that I would feel differently about the issue if that type of surgery was more refined.
[–]spazboy200 4 points5 points6 points  (7 children)
I don't know if you feel comfortable answering this question, it's merely me trying to understand you and others in similar situations.
If you dislike having breasts, but don't want to have genitalia surgery, how does this make yourself different than any other woman? Why/how does this make you male?
[–]crunkadocious [score hidden]  (1 child)
If someone could snap their fingers and you would have perfectly beautiful and functional genitals, it might be an easier decision. As it is, its a big ordeal. And for many people, the external markers that everyone can see are more important.
Note: not op
[–]GLITCHGORE [score hidden]  (0 children)
Thank you! You managed to say what I was trying to say in fewer words, and in a much less convoluted fashion.
[–]Fluffydianthus [score hidden]  (2 children)
I'm not the person you asked, so I hope you don't mind my jumping in.
He said he experienced dysphoria - you can translate dysphoria as 'distress' - in relation to his breasts, but he didn't say that breasts were the only physical discrepancy in his gender indentity.
There are trans men who experience severe disphoria in relation to thier genitals, literal nausea and panic, like waking up in the wrong body after a lifetime as another gender. Some people can't even look at themselves naked without vomitting, or are unable to orgasm because the sensations being sent to thier brain are so wrong. People who experience this obviously opt for surgery, whatever its limitations.
For people who are not as disphoric, who maybe feel a milder sense of 'wrong', or maybe even feel male without the exact biology, the pain, expense, danger, and over-all underdeveloped results of the surgery arn't worth it.
The person you asked isn't describing what it means to be male, he's describing his personal experience with disphoria.
Edit: My answer wasn't very scientific, if you want links let me know. Your question essentially boils down to: what does it mean to be transgender?
[–]slutzombie [score hidden]  (0 children)
It seems like we're arguing over technicalities here. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, but being transgender is not. So is the basis for the "stance" simply making the distinction that not all transgender people are dysphoric? Furthermore, why is being mentally ill considered "derogatory" and "hate speech"? If being trans and gender dysphoria are caused by neurological differences as these studies seem to suggest, would they not be considered mental illnesses? If not, then why is clinical depression (or anything other neurological condition) considered a mental illness, but being transgender is not?
[–]a01chtra [score hidden]  (3 children)
I have several concerns with this as a doctor specialising in psychiatry.
Firstly I want to make clear that transphobia is unacceptable and that it is obvious that this stance will reduce the ability of bigots to express their bigoted views. This is positive.
But I think the whole "science says it's not mental illness so stop pretending it is" attitude demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of mental illness and the problem at hand. The DSM/ICD and indeed all of our treatment basically acknowledges that there is normal variation and then where that causes disability then there is value for treatment. You don't treat people who aren't basically mal-interacting or mal-coping. In this model there is no place for stigma, and two people with the exact same brain in different jobs or different friendship groups can be mentally healthy and mentally ill. This is the view I take and how I will guide my practice.
The physical brain does not respect these definitions and when all of your body cells are sex-labelled one way, including the cells of your physical brain, but you are getting a subjective experience of a different sex, then there has been a technical error/mismatch and it is more likely in the higher processing of the brain than the chromosomes. That this error can cause or not cause pathology in different societal constructs appropriately changes the guidance for clinicians but absolutely should not limit debate or meaningful research into the - let's just say "error, or "mismatch".
Most importantly in my view, raging against the diagnosis of mental illness as inherently negative is clearly extremely problematic in an age where we still see widespread stigma attached to mental illness. "Oh god we're not like them" is not the right stance and any official stance should at least clarify that there should be no stigma attached to mental health as after all the brain is just a squishy mass of cells which make errors just like any other part of the body.
[–]JustHereForTheMemes [score hidden]  (0 children)
As you'd well appreciate though, the devil is in the exceptions. When you refer to cells being labelled with gender, I presume you refer to chromosonal differences. However, as I'm sure you know, several genetic disorders cause people to present with something other than xx/xy pairs.
At this point, the argument becomes philosophical. Do we tell people such as this that their gender identity is an error, as you put it? Are they in fact of no gender? Should we endeavour to convince a woman with Swyer syndrome that she is in fact a man?
[–]Antabaka 138 points139 points140 points  (20 children)
I strongly suggest the mods revise the post from:
Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness
To:
There is a strong scientific consensus that transgender is not a mental illness
Many, many people are freaking out at the idea that you have taken a stance on something they don't apparently realize is based on science.
[–]ani625 [score hidden]  (1 child)
It is assumed that the stance taken is bases on scientific evidence. But doesn't hurt to clarify, yes.
[–]drewiepoodle 268 points269 points270 points x2 (88 children)
I've got a few studies and talks on the biological basis of gender dysphoria, if anyone is interested.
[–]KirkLucKhan 65 points66 points67 points  (3 children)
These links are great, thank you. One note: I don't doubt the preponderance of evidence, but take a closer peek at that last article (about AR repeat length polymorphism). I'd bet my lunch that the P=0.04 association between longer repeat lengths and transsexuality is a classic case of P-hacking. Just glance at Figure 1. I studied trinucleotide repeat disorders (mostly Huntington's) in grad school, and I'd be laughed out of a committee meeting for claiming that result as significant.
[–]drewiepoodle 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
Additionally, a variant genotype for a gene called CYP17, which acts on the sex hormones pregnenolone and progesterone, has been found to be linked to female-to-male transsexualism but not MTF transsexualism. Most notably, the FTM subjects not only had the variant genotype more frequently, but had an allele distribution equivalent to male controls, unlike the female controls. One paper concluded that the loss of a female-specific CYP17 T -34C allele distribution pattern is associated with FtM transsexualism.
[–]DrKomeil 54 points55 points56 points x2 (9 children)
[–]indecencies 28 points29 points30 points  (4 children)
[–]drewiepoodle 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Thanks for the links, I can add these to the library of trans resources
[–]gsunderground [score hidden]  (0 children)
Great info, especially for someone like myself who is still trying to create an informed opinion on the subject.
[–]GingerPonyPineapple 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
I guess I have never understood how to classify being transgender, and for lack of a better way to look at it have thought of it as a mental illness/disorder. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not here to flamebait, I'm not trying to push limits. I just want to know how to classify it, or if it even is classifiable, or if it's currently just its own thing. My reasoning for thinking of it as an illness or disorder is that it is a serious problem, not like people have described in this thread where a woman likes "man things" and a guy likes "women things" that can be aided or even freed from by use of medicine combined with surgical procedures. My understanding is because it is like other disorders or illnesses (like I said, between these two I have a tough time classifying it because both disorders and illnesses can be treated with medicine) I should classify it as such, though I am happy to know that unlike many disorders/illnesses, we have discovered a way to completely rid them of it(the internal struggles, at least. That's not to say that transgender people won't be viewed by bigots as freaks or subhumans or whatever, but I don't think that part of it has anything to do in this sub). I understand I have little to no knowledge in medical terminology, but I haven't really seen it explained while reading through here just what exactly it can be referred to as. As I said, I am looking for constructive feedback here, because I have always felt like calling it an illness or disorder immediately attaches a stigma to it while I have no such stigma for transgender people, but I have absolutely no idea how better to view it.
[–]super_amazing 253 points254 points255 points  (157 children)
I don't understand how anything can be off-topic in science. The assumption must be that we are absolutely correct at the moment, and no evidence can exist to prove otherwise. People have made that claim regarding countless issues throughout history and have been proven wrong over and over again.
Heliocentricity was an absolute no-no a few hundred years ago. It was considered outright blasphemy. Look what happened when we actually started talking about it.
We are fallible. Science is about trying to fix that.
[–]ab_lostboy 11 points12 points13 points  (2 children)
I had this discussion with a coworker less than a week ago regarding this exact topic.
I even brought up that heliocentric point. Science CHANGES its ideas based on the evidence and research. Putting this off-topic was something I didn't hope the scientific community would do, but we've seen it before.
Science has a history of bending to social stigmas of the day, and bending its views to seem more culturally appealing is something that the current scientific community is 100% guilty of. My fear is that studies claiming "condition x" is genetic or whathaveyou will cause larger issues down the line because they're labeled as "anti-trans" or "transphobic". Similar issues exist within race-based studies and statistics.
[–]Bick_Bickerson 132 points133 points134 points  (73 children)
The scientific / mental health establishment has pretty much agreed with what the OP/mod has said. Allowing this bullshit on the board is on par with allowing threads that are debating the merits of racial eugenics. It serves only to alienate the people reading. If there is some groundbreaking new shit that will come out about transgenderism, it won't come from concern trolls on reddit being dicks to people who they don't understand.
[–]EndsInATangent 101 points102 points103 points  (65 children)
I thought it was generally agreed upon that being transgender isn't a mental illness but gender dysphoria is.
Meaning an untransitioned transgender person experiencing dysphoria is mentally ill, but a transitioned person happy with themselves is no longer ill
[–]Liberals_to_Gulag 48 points49 points50 points  (39 children)
Meaning an untransitioned transgender person experiencing dysphoria is mentally ill,
I think while that's probably technically true, there's a certain stigma associated with the phrase that people are really trying to avoid here.
You don't go around calling people with ADHD and such "mentally ill" even if it's in the DSM.
All around, I think there are 2 guidelines. One is to be scientific and the other is to not be an ass.
[–]SubtleMockery [score hidden]  (1 child)
Meaning an untransitioned transgender person experiencing dysphoria is mentally ill,
I think while that's probably technically true, there's a certain stigma associated with the phrase that people are really trying to avoid here.
You don't go around calling people with ADHD and such "mentally ill" even if it's in the DSM.
We don't? Why not?
[–]legayredditmodditors 12 points13 points14 points  (4 children)
there's a certain stigma associated with the phrase that people are really trying to avoid here.
There was a stigma with saying god wasn't real, or the earth was flat, including many other things.
Stigma shouldn't prevent discussion.
Anywhere.
[–]shit-throw 10 points11 points12 points  (3 children)
Thank you.
While I recognize my mind isn't necessarily "right", it could easily be a hormone imbalance. Idk I don't pretend to be a scientist (I am a space enthusiast and a curious mind for sure), I'm just transgender.
I don't give a fuck what anybody calls it. It sucks, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody. I do think calling it a mental illness gives it a bad stigma and your right in that we don't call everything in the DSM a "mental illness". Saying "metnally ill" is kind of, at least in my mind, just calling trans people lunatics who belong in an asylum rather than taking medication (hormones, etc) to alleviate their condition. That's just the picture it paints in my mind though.
That's my perspective. I do welcome anyone to message me with questions on what it's like to be trans, or any questions they might have for a trans person in general. While I'm still very early in my transition and just coming to terms with the whole thing I'll do my best to describe my experiences and answer your questions in time.
[–]crunkadocious [score hidden]  (0 children)
Keep in mind the distinction made between gender dysphoria and transgender. Being transgender is not itself a mental illness or even a diagnosis any more than being homosexual is a diagnosis.
[–]PhDoughboy [score hidden]  (1 child)
So if you say yourself it sucks, and that it could be a hormone balance, what is your opinion on classifying it as a mental disorder (in the way ADHD and OCD are) to allow for research into the subject and work towards a medication for it? I guess what it boils down to, is if there were a pill to make your mind "right", would you support it?
[+][deleted]  (17 children)
[removed]
    [–]Bick_Bickerson 3 points4 points5 points  (14 children)
    Possibly. I find it interesting how much people latch onto the term "mental illness" when it comes to trans people, though, like they're just dying to label them as "mentally ill".
    [–]hss424 21 points22 points23 points  (3 children)
    More like its an acknowledgement the person feels something is wrong and in order to understand it we need to categorize it under something we can understand to hopefully fix it. Hence why pre-op are mentally ill and post-op aren't.
    Pre- feels as if something is wrong and in order to help we need to understand. Post- feels as if everything is fine. No need to help so no need to understand and categorize.
    This is also important because certain tools and techniques are useful cross category. For instance we have this huge category named Math and within math there is a tool named Addition. Any problem in Math can try to be solved with Addition whether or not if it fixes it. Gender reassignment therapy is effective in resolving gender dysphoria hence why there is a belief that there is a problem before and a solution after.
    [–]uber33t 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
    FYI, there are also non-ops.
    For some trans people, hormone replacement therapy is enough to resolve their dysphoria.
    [+][deleted]  (3 children)
    [removed]
      [–]Homozygote 16 points17 points18 points  (1 child)
      Look what happened when we actually started talking about it.
      You mean, look what happened when we started applying scientific thinking to it? Big difference between that and a bunch of anonymous people on the internet discussing something almost none of them are qualified to discuss.
      [+][deleted]  (1 child)
      [removed]
        [–]bobsagetfullhouse [score hidden]  (0 children)
        We are /r/science, our stance on a certain subject is this and if you disagree you are propagating hatespeech and this will not be tolerated.
        [+][deleted]  (1 child)
        [removed]
          [–]glr1235Grad Student | Neuroscience | Chemical Biology[M] 10 points11 points12 points  (60 children)
          We are happy to debate our stance, and ultimately that is what it is - a stance. However, we feel that the body of scientific evidence is overwhelming in this situation.
          Further, when we mean off-topic we mean comments. Jokes, etc. Those are not an "off-topic scientific discussion". You seem to be making an argument about that aspect of the post, and that is not what is implied in our rules. If you would like to discuss science, then we are always happy to do so.
          [–]EndsInATangent 47 points48 points49 points  (27 children)
          I'm confused. Since when do scientists define what is defined as a mental illness or not? It is such a vague term that I've never seen anyone try to touch it.
          I mean, common sense would say mental illness is any mental state that is harmful. I'd say dysphoria can be harmful.
          I think, in an effort to be accurate, you should discourage calling transgenderism a mental illness but still call dysphoria a mental illness.
          [–]NotTenPlusPlease 15 points16 points17 points  (5 children)
          Similar to how you call depression a "mental illness".
          [–]Caristinn 17 points18 points19 points  (9 children)
          The reclassification of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria and no longer being considered a mental illness in the DSM-5 was a political decision because of the unjustified stigmatization attached to people considered mentally ill.
          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 19 points20 points21 points  (6 children)
          Aren't we trying to get politics OUT of science?
          [–]Caristinn 20 points21 points22 points  (3 children)
          Ideally, but science has never been as purely objective as it's claimed to be on Reddit and it's unfortunate when scientific bodies like the DSM or figures like NDGT use their position as authority to interject their opinions into things.
          Trying to solve the stigmatization of mental illnesses by reclassifying things as not being mental illnesses isn't the way to go. They are basically arguing "It's not the fall that kills you!".
          [–]AnOnlineHandle [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Some people make things political and then go after everybody else who hasn't politicized it and accuse them of being political for now holding a different view. e.g. Creationists often accuse evolution of somehow being political, when for many it's just a matter of dealing with the facts the same as anything else, and it's the denialists who turn it into a political issue. The people just continuing on consistently aren't being political, but because there's now a dichotomy of 'one side', the other gets created as some supposed political stance, when in the regular person's mind there's nothing political in their motivations or stance at all, any more than saying that the sun rises in the East.
          [–]glr1235Grad Student | Neuroscience | Chemical Biology 17 points18 points19 points  (6 children)
          That's almost exactly the purpose of the DSM, I believe. However, I am not a psychologist so I wouldn't know precisely.
          [–]thegreatestajax 10 points11 points12 points  (3 children)
          To be clear, DSM is a clinical manual, from clinicians, interpreting the scientific evidence. Science does not prove something to be a disorder or illness, clinicians make that determination.
          [–]ginandsoda [score hidden]  (1 child)
          And to be more clear, a top use of the DSM is to get your condition covered. No diagnosis, no coverage. No coverage, no treatment.
          [–]Konraden 15 points16 points17 points  (0 children)
          The DSM is a guide to help diagnose, not necessarily the definitive authority on what is and isn't a mental illness. Considering the complexities involved, it's easier to define a mental disorder as some psychological condition which negatively affects your ability to live a normal life...simplifying quite a bit.
          To keep it relevant, transgenderism is no more our less a mental illness today than it was 200 years ago, or that it well be in 200 years from now.
          If someone's inability to define their gender as the same as their sex causes great negative repercussions on their everyday life, it can certainly be considered an illness. Otherwise it's a personality quirk (unscientifically.)
          Less apropos; washing your hands a lot is fine. Washing your hands until your fingernails fall off is an illness.
          [–]theatanamonster 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          The main purpose of the DSM is to provide medical billing guidance. Secondary is clinical utility; perhaps even tertiary.
          [–]crunkadocious [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Researchers and clinicians draft the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual in a collaborative setting. So they very much define what constitutes various mental illnesses.
          [–]HittingSmoke 56 points57 points58 points  (28 children)
          I agree with your stance, but replying to comments then removing them reflects extremely poorly. It makes you look like you can't stand up to scrutiny so you have to remove the comment you're arguing against for yours to look legitimate.
          [–]glr1235Grad Student | Neuroscience | Chemical Biology 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
          It wasn't me that removed it, but I've put it back up just to let the debate keep going.
          [–]FJSpoof 13 points14 points15 points  (3 children)
          Well, gender dysphoria IS a mental illness. You can concede the fact that its a mental illness without saying anything hateful.
          [–]PrettyIceCube1BS|Computer Science [score hidden]  (0 children)
          That isn't something you can definitively say.
          Gender dysphoria is classified as a mental illness by some groups like the one behind the DSM, and not by others such as the NHS from the UK, and Denmark's government. There is speculation that the ICD version 11 (still a work in progress by the WHO), will not have it as mental illness.
          [–]blahblahlalawhoomp 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
          But it's important top stress that transgender ≠ gender dysmorphia.
          [–]jabberwockxeno [score hidden]  (0 children)
          As somebody who isn't very familiar with this topic and can't wrap my head around how they are not inherently the same thing, can you clarify as to how that's the case?
          [–]deaf_cheese 10 points11 points12 points  (12 children)
          Could someone let me know why it is no longer considered a mental illness? I'm not saying it is a mental illness, just that I don't know the reasoning.
          [–]Randolpho 12 points13 points14 points  (23 children)
          Since I've been curious about this topic, can anyone point me toward studies or theses that discuss gender as a sociological as compared to a biological concept?
          [–]GavinDavids 119 points120 points121 points  (121 children)
          If a study were to be published that "concludes" that transgenderism is a mental illness, will you be removing that study, regardless of its objective merit or peer-reviewed nature?
          [–]Emazinng 186 points187 points188 points  (79 children)
          There is no room in science for feelings. There's no "stance" to take.
          [–]thunderdragon94 31 points32 points33 points  (2 children)
          If only it were that simple. Data interpretation depends on classification. We can pretend that we are objective and infallible all we want, but by and large we do not have access to why we do certain things.
          [–]TakeFourSeconds 24 points25 points26 points  (1 child)
          Claiming pure, rational objectivity only serves to conceal bias
          [–]thunderdragon94 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          Exactly. It makes huge assumptions about your own infallibility. Which is hilarious, because Gödel threw that one out the window a long time ago.
          [–]DrKomeil 109 points110 points111 points  (39 children)
          You're right, and the fact of the matter is that there is growing scientific consensus that transgender people are not mentally ill, and that sex is a highly complex phenomenon that does not, under close scrutiny, work out to create two cleanly differentiated groups.
          Posting the same few sources from notoriously biased and unscientific works is, however, unscientific in much the same way showing the same studies about vaccines causing autism is unscientific. The goal isn't to further knowledge but to justify a predetermined opinion. Not scientific at all.
          [–]Eurynom0s 39 points40 points41 points  (13 children)
          I think part of the problem is that we still assume that any and all mental illness is all-caps BAD and only said in a way that's meant to tear people down—so it's really a reflection on how we deal with mental illness more than anything.
          It seems like there has to be something mentally wrong to be convinced that you're in the wrong body. This isn't quite the same thing as when people thought homosexuality was a mental illness, since homosexuality doesn't mean your mind essentially rejecting your body. However, that doesn't mean that it can't be the case that as of right now the best way to deal with it is to provide sex reassignment surgery when it's desired, and to otherwise let them try to lead the life they want to (this entire bathroom controversy is just ridiculous, for starters).
          It seems like a semantics game where it's easier to label something as not a mental illness than it is to get society to stop stigmatizing mental illness.
          [–]gayd3n 14 points15 points16 points  (2 children)
          I think part of the problem is that we still assume that any and all mental illness is all-caps BAD and only said in a way that's meant to tear people down—so it's really a reflection on how we deal with mental illness more than anything.
          Yeah, I've wanted to refer to it as an illness/disorder in certain discussions but I'm hesitant to do so because I know it sounds offensive/bad, but all I'm trying to say is that psychologically something is abnormal - but there's nothing negative about that.
          [–]Tehfatzor [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Being transgender isn't always about "being in the wrong body." Sometimes, trans people do not wish to change their genitals or their body, but do wish to identify as the opposite sex, or no sex at all (non-binary). To put it simply, the psychological gender is not determined by one's genitals all the time. This only appears to be a mental illness to some because of the way our society has grown to compartmentalize sex into very specific categories.
          [–]Obi_Kwiet 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
          How is that a scientific consensus and not merely a semantic one? Are we really going to go through the whole nonsense of pretending non discrete group distinctions can't be made? Transsexuals would represent a combined type one and type two error of less than a percent. That's really very good.
          [–]not---a---bot [score hidden]  (0 children)
          sex is a highly complex phenomenon that does not, under close scrutiny, work out to create two cleanly differentiated groups.
          Couldn't you just have two groups of people where the first group has XX and the second group has XY? That's pretty cleanly differentiated on a genetic level. I was under the impression that the exceptions to the rule are in the vast minority and considered medical disorders.
          [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology 55 points56 points57 points  (14 children)
          There is no room in science for feelings. There's no "stance" to take.
          That's the irony here. Our stance is that irrespective of the personal feelings of bigoted users, we will not treat that anti-science positions that being trans is a mental illness or some how not "real" in the same way that we would opposition to vaccines or gravity. This is a science subreddit and the science is clear. Your personal feelings about whether or not it's "okay" or "real" doesn't actually make a difference.
          [–]Royce- 14 points15 points16 points  (5 children)
          we will not treat that anti-science positions that being trans is a mental illness or some how not "real" in the same way that we would opposition to vaccines or gravity.
          Did you mean that you will treat people calling it a mental illness in the same way you treat anti-vaccination and anti-gravity comments? I am confused.
          [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
          Absolutely.
          [–]Royce- 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          Alright, thanks! I was so confused.
          [–]tortillachips 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          Thank you.
          [–]Jive_Bob 71 points72 points73 points  (7 children)
          I understand hate comments but cutting off discussion and assuming what we know as of this moment is the end all isn't very science minded.
          [–]NotTenPlusPlease 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
          I think they are trying to eliminate concern trolling from becoming an issue, as it very often does with transgender topics.
          Heck on the front page right now a person was concern trolling over trans-bathroom access and actually assaulted someone.
          [–]UncleMeatGrad Student|Security|Programming Languages [score hidden]  (1 child)
          /r/science is a discussion board, not a place where actual science gets done. Its not like people are attaching experimental evidence to their posts about transgender people being crazy. The best way to proceed with controversial topics in this discussion board is to lean towards the best available science.
          [–]KorianHUN [score hidden]  (0 children)
          AKA say that Eart is flat because everyone else says it and the heretics saying otherwise should be burned.
          [–]swallowedfilth 16 points17 points18 points  (1 child)
          That isn't what is happening to /r/science, however. Peer reviewed articles will still be allowed, so in the case of new development in the field (and somebody posts it to the subreddit) then discussion will happen.
          Plus, I don't think they would be going through with the AMA tomorrow if the goal was to eliminate discussion.
          [–]LadyCailin [score hidden]  (0 children)
          They aren't shutting off comments, so long as they can be backed up by peer reviewed evidence.
          [–]haplogreenleaf [score hidden]  (0 children)
          After reading a lot of these posts, it is evident that there is significant confusion on the correct terminology that is contributing to at least a part of this ruckus. For example, some users are identifying as transgender without transition but reporting dysphoria, which muddies the water, as this reads as transgender being some form of disorder. Suggest being quite particular on word choice.
          [–]BigEd781 86 points87 points88 points  (36 children)
          Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness
          So /r/science, is this stance based upon scientific evidence, or is it a reflection of the moderators feelings? Whether or not it is a mental illness is a scientific question, not a moral stance, and therefore up for debate.
          Hate speech is one thing, but I don't think this sub should be squashing genuine, fact based discussion of any kind.
          [–]wickedmosaic 20 points21 points22 points  (3 children)
          Moral stances are always for debate but this sub is not the appropriate place for that. The change appears to have been made (judging by comments left by the mods) because of the bulk of scientific literature behind it.
          [–]BigEd781 12 points13 points14 points  (2 children)
          Moral stances are always for debate but this sub is not the appropriate place for that. The change appears to have been made (judging by comments left by the mods)
          What do morals have to do with anything? I'm talking about fact based debate, not hate speech or emotion. Nothing in science is sacrosanct.
          [–]wickedmosaic 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
          Whether or not it is a mental illness is a scientific question, not a moral stance, and therefore up for debate.
          The statement made it sound like that moral points of inquiry were not debatable but if that isn't what you meant i'm sorry.
          [–]BigEd781 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          Whether or not it is a mental illness is a scientific question, not a moral stance, and therefore up for debate.
          Sorry, poor wording on my part. I only meant to say that legitimate, fact based discussion should always be allowed, regardless of the subject.
          [–]exploderator 16 points17 points18 points  (17 children)
          As reasonable sounding as your post is framed to be, I'm sure if there is actually any scientific evidence indicating that "transgender is mental illness", you're completely free to post it. The problem is there is already a wide consensus that it isn't, so merely shitposting the unfounded notion that it is, is not within the legitimate purview of this sub. If there is a mental illness problem here, then let people research and publish, and then link their reputable work here.
          [–]BigEd781 21 points22 points23 points  (15 children)
          The problem is there is already a wide consensus that it isn't, so merely shitposting the unfounded notion that it is, is not within the legitimate purview of this sub
          Well I'm not talking about 'shitposting', I'm talking about reasoned debate. The OP is drawing a line, saying that the subject is not even up for discussion. That's not science; it's religion. No such rule should be in place for any topic.
          [–]IcaynaGrad Student | Microbiology and Bioinformatics 10 points11 points12 points  (2 children)
          I think you should re-examine your perspective here, what Nate is saying is that mods are going to treat comments about transgender topic such as gender dysphoria the same way we treat comments about climate change.
          If you raise honest, reasonable questions that do no dehumanize or attack anyone, your post will stand. If you start spouting information that's been proven repeatedly wrong by the scientific community, we're going to delete it because it's not science to keep dredging up something that's been put to rest, same way we delete comments from people come in here and rant about how Obama's secret science cabal has somehow tricked everyone that the climate's shifting something something chemtrails.
          If you want science, scroll up and read the links. I think the take away message here is that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that:
          1. Transgender people exist
          2. Allowing and supporting their transition is the most effective method of treatment for gender dysphoria.
          Further, denying or invalidating either of those points out of idle intellectual curiosity is harmful to these individuals in ways that ultimately contribute to a suicide rate approximately Thirteen-thousand times higher than the national average. The mods have both a scientific and an ethical compulsion to regulate this discussion into something positive.
          [–]BigEd781 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
          I think you should re-examine your perspective here, what Nate is saying is that mods are going to treat comments about transgender topic such as gender dysphoria the same way we treat comments about climate change. If you raise honest, reasonable questions that do no dehumanize or attack anyone, your post will stand.
          Great, I agree; so let's put that in the original post, because as it stands it doesn't say that at all. Also, if that's the case, why do we need any special rules at all? Aren't the comments you mention as being disallowed already disallowed per the current rules of the sub?
          [–]IcaynaGrad Student | Microbiology and Bioinformatics 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          We're posting it because every time there's a post about transgender issues the mods have to delete several hundred incredibly awful, thoughtless or derisive comments, and frankly it's upsetting. Passive deletion and moderation only get so far, it's important to reach out.
          Also reread thread title, this is a reminder not a special rule. This was always the rule. People just have zero respect for it.
          [–]BANNEDFROMALAMO 2 points3 points4 points  (9 children)
          You heard it here guys. Gravity is not science. It is feelings. Because we dont offer a forum for people denying that gravity exists.
          [–]BigEd781 5 points6 points7 points  (8 children)
          Well that's some excellent hyperbole, but you're completely missing the point. Are we allowed to discuss differing opinions on the nature of gravity? Are you under the impression that we have that question answered?
          [–]BANNEDFROMALAMO 8 points9 points10 points  (7 children)
          How about you offer a scientific opinion, based on a peer reviewed study, that contradicts the stance the mods have taken?
          Otherwise, you are doing exactly what everyone is accusing you of doing.
          [–]BigEd781 4 points5 points6 points  (5 children)
          Still don't get it... what I'm saying has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the specifics of gender identification. The topic is irrelevant. I'm saying that this sub should not disallow reasoned, fact based debate on any subject, period.
          [–]LadyCailin [score hidden]  (0 children)
          And it's not disallowing it. You are free to post evidence discussing trans issues. Simply saying "no, it's definitely a mental disorder" and then leaving it at that with no evidence to support your claim is what's being disallowed.
          [–]brak10 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          He's not going to get it. He's arguing with everyone. Some people simply cannot think objectively or in abstraction.
          [–]clapshands [score hidden]  (0 children)
          I think it's a troll really. He's drawing out the same argument over and over to the point where his objection dissolves even though that was clear far earlier. Also how he keeps attacking everyone else as not being reasoned of logical. Heres the pattern: 1. The mods are against reason banning dissent. 2. It doesnt matter if the dissent isn't scientific and I'm not taking a stance on the science. You're not being logical. 3. I didn't say the dissenter wouldnt have facts or evidence for their claims. You're not being objective. 4. You just cant comprehend my rationality.
          Ideally he can just keep cycling between 1-3 and peppering a verbose 4 in there to keep dodging the obvious conclusion that his scenario, in its most specific form, wouldn't be an issue. And tossing out "the science isn't settled" every once and a while, but that's harder to use since there are qualified and informed people here that can directly refute it.
          He's just trying to waste people's time, feigning intellectual rigor to justify being purposefully obtuse.
          [–]legayredditmodditors [score hidden]  (0 children)
          How about you offer a scientific opinion
          Oh he should offer one like 'Gravity is not science. It is feelings'?
          Or are your own words a bad example?
          [–]beerybeardybear 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          No, you're literally talking about shitposting. That you're too much of A STEMlord to realize that the things you're saying are shit is immaterial to that fact.
          [–]BigEd781 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          No, I'm literally not. If you don't understand what I'm saying by this point then I can't help you.
          [–]soupdawg -7 points-6 points-5 points  (0 children)
          Comments like that will get you banned. Don't cross the party line.
          [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology[M] 2 points3 points4 points  (10 children)
          So /r/science, is this stance based upon scientific evidence or a reflection of the moderators feelings? Whether or not it is a mental illness is a scientific question, not a moral stance, and therefore up for debate.
          It's up for debate in the science. It's not "up for debate" in a scientific forum where we allow on-topic debate about science. It is the stance of every relevant body that it's not a mental illness and thus we conform to that. If the evidence changes, our stance will change too.
          [–]BigEd781 44 points45 points46 points  (8 children)
          It's up for debate in the science. It's not "up for debate" in a scientific forum where we allow on-topic debate about science.
          I honestly have no idea what that means. Are you saying that this sub is intended only to enforce the current thoughts on a given subject and disallows any debate to the contrary?
          [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology[M] -9 points-8 points-7 points  (8 children)
          I honestly have no idea what that means. Are you saying that this sub is intended only to enforce the current thoughts on a given subject and disallows any debate to the contrary?
          To some extent, yes. The current scientific consensus is that global warming is real. You are welcome to discuss global warming but simply stating that global warming isn't real without evidence to show that, your comments are anti-science and worthy of removal. It is, in fact, just your opinion. The science continues in global warming however and it's still "up for debate" in the literature.
          [–]BigEd781 16 points17 points18 points  (7 children)
          You are welcome to discuss global warming but simply stating that global warming isn't real without evidence to show that, your comments are anti-science and worthy of removal
          Ok, fine, but when did I ever suggest that? I have said over and over that reasoned and factual debate on any subject should be allowed. I don't know why people continue to twist my words in order to make a point. The OP has disallowed any discussion. If that was not the intent then the post should be edited to be more clear.
          [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
          Ok, fine, but when did I ever suggest that? I have said over and over that reasoned and factual debate on any subject should be allowed
          We certainly allow reasoned and factual debate. The standard is just higher when you're opposing well established science.
          [–]BigEd781 17 points18 points19 points  (4 children)
          Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness, and derogatory comments about transgender people will be treated on par with sexism and racism, typically resulting in a ban without notice
          Ok well perhaps that should be amended then. Why is the sub taking an 'official stance' on anything at all? Just keep the current rules in place which already disallow hate speech and poor quality comments.
          [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology 11 points12 points13 points  (1 child)
          AMA tomorrow (as per the bottom of the sticky). We want to be very, very clear about what we will tolerate so no one can claim ignorance.
          [–]KorianHUN [score hidden]  (0 children)
          So basically you are just tagging people here who are not followers of your beliefs so you can delete their questions under the ama if you see any sign of heresy?
          You seem to the equivalent of the people who live in shit houses then only clean it if CPS inspects them.
          [–]Sw0rDz 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
          /r/science hasn't changed. The rules in this thread are nothing new, and thus no amendment is required. I'm guessing the mods are anticipating an influx of new (non-regular) users wanting to participate in the AMA. The mods don't want these users to comment on transgender dysphoria being a mental illness. There is little to no evidence of it being a mental illness, and there is overwhelming evidence on the flip side. These comments can both be misinforming and potentially disrespecting to the AMA host.
          [–]BANNEDFROMALAMO -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          Judging by all the folks concern trolling, they are correct in their anticipation.
          [–]Multiscoop [score hidden]  (0 children)
          But this issue is not 'well-estabilished' science... transgenderism and gender dysphoria are still very new areas of study (really only the last 15 or so years have people even started to seriously look into it), and the science is still quite murky on most of it.
          I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is just an entirely new issue altogether. All feelings and morals aside, it's just not an area that science has delved into a ton. That's where I think people's concern is justified that this is going to be used as an excuse to censor, especially with how hot these debates tend to get. Opposition to /r/science's 'official' stance is quite justified in this respect.
          [–]legayredditmodditors [score hidden]  (0 children)
          It's up for debate in the science. It's not "up for debate" in a scientific forum
          wow.
          [–]malmajid97 -3 points-2 points-1 points  (1 child)
          It's ridiculous that the Moderators of /r/science can be unscientific in order to pander to a minority group. They shouldn't allow their emotions to overrule hard science.
          [–]digimer 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          It's ridiculous that the Moderators of /r/science can be unscientific in order to pander to a minority group. They shouldn't allow their emotions to overrule hard science.
          What science contradicts their position? All major medical communities involved in the treatment of transgenderism supports their position. If/when peer-reviewed studies come along that counter this, then so be it.
          Remember though; In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Most people claiming that being trans (or queer in general) is "a mental disorder" are saying that based, at best, on outdated evidence superseded by several new studies contradicting them.
          Thus, it is safe to assume that those who currently (and loudly) claim that transsexuality is a mental disease do so out of a position of ignorance, at best.
          [–]huevosgrandote [score hidden]  (9 children)
          Welp, hopefully I don't get banned. But I thought suicide was more or less the result of mental illness. Are there any other traits someone is born with that makes it way more likely to commit suicide that is not a mental illness? I understand certain life choices, like joining the military, drastically increase chances of suicide, but don't really understand why trans would have such an increased rate of suicide without it being mental illness.
          Usually when I ask questions like this I get treated like a bigot, but really I am just trying to gain a better understanding.
          [–]thethundering [score hidden]  (3 children)
          Gender dysphoria, the distress and discomfort stemming from feeling like your brain's gender doesn't match your body's, is a mental illness. Being transgender is not the same as having gender dysphoria.
          They are still transgender after they transition so their body more or less matches their gender, but they no longer feel dysphoria.
          [–]huevosgrandote [score hidden]  (2 children)
          But aren't suicide rates still sky high even after the transition?
          [–]thethundering [score hidden]  (1 child)
          From what I've heard, that is very much because individuals and society at large treat trans people like shit, and transitioning is a long, stressful, imperfect process. People on reddit frequently reference a study demonstrating that post-op trans people are 3 times (or whatever the number is) more likely to commit suicide. What they leave out is that number is in comparison to non-trans people, and the post-op suicide rate is actually drastically lower than pre-op.
          [–]huevosgrandote [score hidden]  (0 children)
          You're right. I have never heard of the rates going down after transition. I think I am like a lot of people, I see stuff like this in headlines, but really don't do any research on it.
          [–]JustHereForTheMemes [score hidden]  (2 children)
          That's a great question. The difficulty with answering this is our inability to view trangender people in a vacuum. The current model hypothesises that trangenderism in itself has no effect on suicidality, rather society's reaction to trangenderism is much more likely to be the causitive factor.
          This is shown in cultures where transgenderism has historically been accepted. The problem though is that these cultures are few and far between and influence the data in other ways.
          [–]huevosgrandote [score hidden]  (1 child)
          Any idea on what type of consensus? Are we talking like theory of relativity or a theory in the beginning stages?
          [–]JustHereForTheMemes [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Completely subjectively, I'd say climate change consensus. Fairly overwhelming, with a few people (vastly lay people) disputing it.
          [–]tripyra [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Are there any other traits someone is born with that makes it way more likely to commit suicide that is not a mental illness?
          Being born biologically male, for one. That's a pretty big suicide risk.
          [–]it_aint_worth_it [score hidden]  (0 children)
          My guess is that it correlates strongly with the unreasonably high rates of sexual assault, murder and other violent crime trans people are subject to.
          Sometimes the societal conditions you are born into make life a lot harder to live. I'd imagine life sucks when people insist your identity is a mental illness.
          [–]Hydropos 86 points87 points88 points  (56 children)
          Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness
          Just to play devil's advocate here, this may be at odds with the DSM definition of a mental disorder. Given that gender dysmorphia often requires medical procedures to alleviate the associated distress (a "sex change" for lack of a better term) the use of the word "disorder" seems reasonable here.
          There is some more interesting reading (though not really a scientific source) along this line of thought in this ELI5 thread from a year ago:
          [–]fourdots 52 points53 points54 points  (5 children)
          Gender dysphoria is defined as a mental disorder by the DSM-V, as is body dysmorphic disorder. Gender dysmorphia is not a thing.
          Dysphoria is not the same thing as being transgender. Dysphoria is the distress caused by having the wrong body, and is generally corrected via medical intervention (HRT, GRS, etc.) in addition to any social aspects which individuals wish to pursue. Being transgender is not in and of itself a disorder (and does not meet the definition of a mental disorder), but it can cause disorders.
          [–]CupcakeTrap 34 points35 points36 points  (3 children)
          Indeed. If you took a cisgender female, then used hormones/surgery to make them physically male, they would likely develop gender dysphoria, which is the condition of experiencing distress from being in "the wrong body", i.e., your body/gender appearance not matching your gender identity.
          [–]LadyCailin [score hidden]  (1 child)
          See: the unfortunate and unethical case of David Reimer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
          [–]WikipediaPoster [score hidden]  (0 children)
          David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man born biologically male but raised female following medical advice and intervention after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision in infancy. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. Academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer failed to identify as female since the age of 9 to 11, and transitioned to living as a male at age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. He later committed suicide after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and a troubled marriage.
          I am a bot. Please contact /u/GregMartinez with any questions or feedback.
          [–]tadzioizdat [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Actually happens to people that have to take cross-sex hormones for other reasons. Which is why, for example, surgery for gynecomastia is included in most healthcare plans
          [–]NotTenPlusPlease 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          Also be aware that dysmorphia and dysphoria are not the same thing.
          There is currently no such thing as Gender Dysmorphia, that I am aware of.
          [–]Rocketsprocket 17 points18 points19 points  (1 child)
          Would it be correct to say that gender dysphoria is a disorder, while transitioning is the treatment? Hence being transgendered is not a disorder any more than being on a medication is a disorder.
          [–]BewilderedDash 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Intersex conditions aren't classified as disorders, and I don't see why being transgender should be as well. They are both to our current understanding biological/developmental conditions. It's a condition that can express itself in a large number of ways. Transitioning is a form of treatment, whether the transitioning in question is medical, social, a combination of the two, and the extent of the treatment is all down to the individual in question.
          Also, it's transgender, not transgendered (transgendered isn't a word). "Hence being transgender" is the correct grammar.
          So to lay it out. Someone is transgender, this is a condition, much like being intersex is a condition. This condition can cause the person in question to suffer from gender dysphoria (or in some cases gender euphoria), which manifests in numerous different ways with differing intensity (this can be classified as a disorder I suppose). Transitioning is the treatment for the dysphoria.
          Edit: This is just me agreeing with /u/Rocketsprocket
          [–]Ash-M 85 points86 points87 points  (27 children)
          Pretty interesting what the DSM says there. I wonder what else the DSM has to say!
          It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder.
          o.
          [–][deleted]  (2 children)
          [removed]
            [–][deleted]  (1 child)
            [removed]
              [–]tossback2 8 points9 points10 points  (23 children)
              Gender nonconformity is not being transgender. A transgender person believes themselves to be the opposite sex, and experiences severe mental and physical stress as a result of that.
              Gender nonconformity is a woman who likes football, or a man who likes to bake cakes. People who do not conform strictly to the roles of their gender.
              [–]DrKomeil 36 points37 points38 points  (0 children)
              From the APA:
              DSM-5 aims to avoid stigma and ensure clinical care for individuals who see and feel themselves to be a different gender than their assigned gender. It replaces the diagnostic name “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria,” as well as makes other important clarifications in the criteria. It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.
              The intent seems pretty clear to conflate the two.
              [–]Ash-M 16 points17 points18 points  (7 children)
              If you would read the article I linked, you might come to realize that "being transgender" is exactly what they're talking about there.
              [–][deleted]  (6 children)
              [removed]
                [–][deleted]  (3 children)
                [removed]
                  [–]BewilderedDash 8 points9 points10 points  (8 children)
                  A transgender person believes themselves to be the opposite sex, and experiences severe mental and physical stress as a result of that.
                  Not all trans people suffer severe mental or physical stress. We come in many different varieties and it infuriates me when people use inaccurate, all or nothing BS to define us because it makes it harder for people who are questioning, and invalidates those of us who do not fit the stereotypical trans narrative.
                  [–]tossback2 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
                  Well then I have to ask--if someone experiences no stress related to their sex at birth, why would they want to change their sex? I honestly, sincerely, do not understand what the impetus to act would be. If there's no discomfort, what's the problem?
                  [–]BewilderedDash 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
                  Some people experience mild discomfort. Others fluctuating discomfort. But there are people who feel that they would just be happier as the other gender. This sometimes builds into discomfort over time.
                  They might not feel any specific hatred of disgust for their body as is, just that when imagining themselves as the other gender, either socially or physically they feel happier. It's most often referred to as having gender euphoria or being gender euphoric.
                  I have days where I want to have a female body because I would prefer it over a male one. Not because I hate my male body, but because having a female one would feel more correct. Other days the feeling of wanting a female body is driven out of anxiety/hatred/digust for my current physical qualities.
                  Some people fit much more into the former situation all the time, some have fluctuating feelings like I do, and others suffer severe dysphoria all the time.
                  Some people experience a longing for their ideal gender, others a hatred for their current gender. And often it's a combination of both. But overall, it's a very mixed bag, and strict definitions while they can be helpful, are also detrimental to a lot of questioning people or people early in their experimentation because it makes them question whether they are 'trans enough'. Which can often make them defer treatment that they needed, and causes regret.
                  "Am I trans?" and "Am I trans enough?" are common questions in a lot of trans subreddits.
                  [–]khelektinmir 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
                  I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling.
                  The lack of "severe mental or physical stress" does not mean that you can't get positive results from changing things about your body.
                  A transgender woman may experience dysphoria by the very fact that she has a penis and testicles, disliking the way they look and the fact that they represent a body different to the one she feels she would like. If the distress is severe enough, she can be treated by a psychiatrist for depression/anxiety, and possibly, if she wishes, she can get surgery to change her genitalia.
                  Another transgender woman, on the other hand, may get along fine from day to day -- through the way she dresses and presents herself, she may have no problem being perceived as female, and the fact that she has a penis under her clothing doesn't have a huge bearing on her daily routine. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have plenty of reasons she might want get gender reassignment surgery. She might wish to have testes removed to get rid of masculinizing effects of testosterone. She might want to get into a relationship but finds that it's limiting her prospects to have the genitalia she has. She may simply think that, although she doesn't exactly agonize over the fact that she doesn't have a vagina, having a vagina would make her feel more feminine, more whole, or simply happier.
                  tl;dr "no severe mental or physical stress" ≠ "no stress"
                  [–]Antinerf 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  This was an excellent explanation of significant distress as it relates to diagnosis. Thank you!
                  [–]blueandroid [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  Sex and gender are not the same thing.
                  [–]pengalor -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
                  And I guess my addition to that question would be: How is it possible to not feel significant discomfort when your body doesn't match what your brain tells you you are? I guess I don't understand how someone can be transgender and not be dysphoric.
                  I mean no offense from this by the way, honest question.
                  [–]Caristinn 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
                  You made a post about experiencing dysphoria 26 days ago, though.
                  The common factor that all transgender people share is that they experience or have experienced gender dysphoria, in the same way that the thing that unifies homosexual men is that they are attracted to other men.
                  [–]BewilderedDash 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                  My point is that the typical trans narrative is that of suffering 'severe' dysphoria and wanting to self mutilate isn't actually really common.
                  If it were a black and white issue, non-binary people likely wouldn't be a thing. If you get what I mean. I wrote a more elaborate response to someone else in this same comment chain if you want to have a look.
                  I need to go get ready to leave my house :P
                  [–]NotTenPlusPlease 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                  A transgender person believes themselves to be the opposite sex...
                  If that were true and they believed they were already the opposite sex, they wouldn't feel compelled to transition to the opposite sex.
                  [–]Columbayolo [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  Your definition of transgender is quite narrow and excludes those who do not identify with either sex, those with ambiguous genitalia, and those with chromosomal patterns outside of the common XX-XY types. And transgender persons do not all experience mental and physical stress. But I would not accuse you of hate speech because of your narrow mindedness. ;-)
                  [–]AnOnlineHandle [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  A transgender person believes themselves to be the opposite sex,
                  The way that it's been explained to me would make this absolutely not the definition of transgender.
                  Sex: Biological Male or Female
                  Gender: A category of social roles, often just 2 and assigned by sex and (annoyingly) using the same words. A society might also have 3 genders, hunter, weaver, and cooker. They are entirely arbitrary constructs which change with time and place, e.g. it was 'men' who wore skirts until horse riding changed that, and now it's 'women', and neither is 'right' but simply an assigned list of conformities for the current place and time. Somebody wishing to be another role than the one assigned to them due to their place and time of birth isn't at all an act of insanity in this context.
                  [–]WintermuteWintermute -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
                  Gender nonconformity also applies to people that identify outside of the binary construct of gender, not just people that don't conform to gender roles. Genderqueer, agender, nonbinary, etc.
                  [–]tossback2 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                  What's the difference between not conforming to gender roles and not conforming to gender roles? Genderqueer, agender, and nonbinary are all different varieties of nonconformity to gender roles.
                  [–]fsmpastafarian9PhD | Clinical Psychology 19 points20 points21 points  (10 children)
                  The article you linked makes no mention of Gender Dysphoria.
                  Gender dysphoria does not refer only to being transgender, it refers to experiencing significant distress due to being transgender. Many transgender people never meet criteria for Gender Dysphoria. The chapter in the DSM, which goes into significant detail about the issue, is quite unequivocal about the fact that being transgender alone is not a mental disorder.
                  [–]Hydropos -8 points-7 points-6 points  (1 child)
                  The article you linked makes no mention of Gender Dysphoria.
                  The article was about the DSM (III, IV, and V) definitions of a mental disorder. My claim was that because gender dysmorphia (or dysphoria) requires medical treatment, it qualifies as a disorder under those definitions (though, as they point out, there is no cut-and-dry definition).
                  The chapter in the DSM, which goes into significant detail about the issue, is quite unequivocal about the fact that being transgender alone is not a mental disorder
                  This gets into the pre-treatment/post-treatment definition. IE, that it's only a disorder until treated (sex change), then the transgender individual is no longer considered to have a disorder. This seems reasonable.
                  [–]khelektinmir 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
                  The fact that you keep saying "gender dysmorphia" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about and keep ignoring all sources that demonstrate as such. This is not even a term that exists in the real world. It's "gender dysphoria". Is has nothing to do with "morphing".
                  Dysphoria is severe distress and anxiety associated with feeling that your body does not conform to your gender. It is treated to alleviate distress, in the same way that depression is treated to alleviate distress. Not all transgender people experience severe dysphoria, and thus do not seek psychiatric treatment, since it's not the condition of them being transgender that is being treated.
                  "sex change" for lack of a better term
                  The better term is "gender-confirmation surgery" or "gender-reassignment surgery".
                  [–]Caristinn -9 points-8 points-7 points  (7 children)
                  Many transgender people never meet criteria for Gender Dysphoria.
                  You do need gender dysphoria to be transgender, though, in the same way than you need to be attracted to men to be gay. That's how the word has always been used.
                  [–]fsmpastafarian9PhD | Clinical Psychology 11 points12 points13 points  (3 children)
                  You actually don't need to meet criteria for gender dysphoria in order to be transgender - many people are transgender and do not experience significant distress about it, do not wish to transition, etc. in which case they are transgender but do not have gender dysphoria
                  [–]Caristinn 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
                  Transgender is the social term here. It's an extremely contentious position even in the transgender community that someone who does not experience dysphoria (or has experienced it in the past prior to treatment) or wishes to transition can still be considered transgender, and is even seen as a belittling for someone who feels neither to claim to experience the same struggle.
                  [–]NotTenPlusPlease 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                  The key is the word 'significant'.
                  [–]Reddisaurusrekts 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
                  Yes, in the way that all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks.
                  All people who experience gender dysphoria would be transgender, but not all transgender people would suffer from gender dysphoria.
                  [–]Caristinn 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
                  They did experience gender dysphoria at some point, though, causing them to want to be transgender. There's no reason to transition otherwise.
                  [–]Reddisaurusrekts [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  Yeah that's what I'm trying to understand either - unless they transition of course, how you could be transgender without feeling clinical distress at the disconnect between your gender and your biological sex, or vice versa.
                  [–]NotTenPlusPlease 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                  dysmorphia and dysphoria are not the same thing.
                  there is currently no such thing as Gender Dysmorphia, that I am aware of.
                  [–]legalize-drugs [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  That thread was an all-time lowlight in reddit history. Get over your bad selves, people. Some folks don't feel happy in their given sex, including my brother. In his case he's happier having transitioned. By calling it a "mental illness," you're not just expressing weak hatred, you're trivializing actual mental illness.
                  [–]DrKomeil 8 points9 points10 points  (2 children)
                  The DSM also says that being transgender is not a mental illness, so you're point is moot.
                  [–]Hydropos -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
                  This gets into the pre-treatment/post-treatment definition. IE, that it's only a disorder until treated (sex change), then the transgender individual is no longer considered to have a disorder. This seems reasonable.
                  [–]Antinerf 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                  it's only a disorder until treated (sex change)
                  Not quite. You are confusing transgenderism with gender dysphoria. The definition of a mental disorder, according to Wikipedia, is as follows:
                  A mental disorder (also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder) is a diagnosis of a behavioral or mental pattern that can cause suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life.
                  This is what the APA (publisher of the DSM) has to say:
                  The official reclassification as gender dysphoria in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues, because the term gender dysphoria applies only to the discontent experienced by some persons resulting from gender identity issues. The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
                  Finally, I would like to refer you to your own link that you posted above:
                  Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”
                  To some, treatment is a solution to this distress. It varies, however, from person to person. In conclusion, however, it is incorrect to say that pre-treatment individuals have a mental disorder unless they experience notable distress. What does distress mean, though? They give some examples in that link too. Wikipedia's page on gender dysphoria can hook you up, too.
                  (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. [Now from Wiki] Adults with GID are at increased risk for stress, isolation, anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem and suicide.
                  [–]beerybeardybear -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
                  Just to play devil's advocate here
                  When you play devil's advocate, remember for whom you're advocating.
                  [–]Hydropos [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  That's sort of the point. To take an unpopular stance for the sake for creating discussion
                  [–]theboiledpeanuts 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
                  guys, chill. their official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness. their official stance is also that evolution is real. yes, both can be debated. there should still be ways of talking about transgender issues without it devolving into hate speech. the question "could transgenderism be a mental illness, similar to anorexia nervosa or body dysmorphia?" is still valid, and not hate speech. the mods are just trying to prevent that question from eclipsing the AMA tomorrow and preventing any newer, more relevant questions from being seen. I am a transgender person, I appreciate the scientific minds who are trying to be open and understand this issue. and to be perfectly honest, what is and isn't a mental illness is all up for debate. it's my personal opinion that sentience is a mental illness, but hey, what are you gonna do
                  [–]brak10 75 points76 points77 points  (62 children)
                  I think this is very irresponsible of the mods and also completely unscientific.
                  While I am not against transgender people how can anyone seriously believe that an unsettled scientific concept is "settled" and "off limits"?
                  This is as bad as the church saying "our official stance is that the sun revolves around the Earth and any theory that disagrees with this will be treated on par with heresy, typically resulting in jail time". It's the exact same concept- an authority has taken a political position despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting it.
                  The fact is that scientists simply do not know if it's a mental illness or not. Were these born with a brain of the opposite sex? Are hormone levels responsible? Are they mentally ill?
                  What would happen if Harvard released a study concluding that it is a disorder? Would linking to that study be off limits? How can you consider something to be a "fact" when you don't know yet?
                  Nobody knows for sure yet, so please don't condemn people who take a different view of the topic. This isn't science, this is identity politics run amok.
                  [–]wickedmosaic 34 points35 points36 points  (0 children)
                  Judging from the original post and some of the comments made by the moderators and company it doesn't seem like they are banning anyone from posting studies in the future. This mainly seems to be a clarification on the moderation of comments.
                  [–]JustHereForTheMemes 50 points51 points52 points  (12 children)
                  Out of curiosity, are you able to cite any of these sources of conflict? I'm a psychologist and am not aware of any significant professional groups against the current stance.
                  [–]exploderator 9 points10 points11 points  (3 children)
                  Honestly, thank you for taking the time to say that. I'm a lay-person, but it doesn't take much effort to see that what you say is true, even though there's a big hot steaming pile of idiocy going on with fringe groups like the American College of Pediatricians. Sadly, that vicious garbage got vacuumed up by some activism groups, and popularized on YouTube and various other places, and now some large number of concerned lay-people think there's actually a controversy, when there really isn't. It's one of the worst kind of confusions, because the task of combating the disinformation is almost one of proving a negative, we're stuck trying to say "Actually no, that's not really happening, false alarm." It doesn't play as well as the alarmist message, and that's a real shame.
                  So thanks again for lending the informed authority of your qualified work to the discussion. We need people like you to speak up.
                  [–]JustHereForTheMemes 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
                  Not a problem. Psychology is a much more accessible science than, say, quantum physics. This is great as it leads to a lot of lay interest, but it does lead to a problem where people put much more value on their own opinions than if we were debating quarks.
                  [–]exploderator [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  First, thank you again. Please do keep speaking a lot, only good can come of this.
                  Psychology is a much more accessible science
                  Psychology is also directly, immediately, and crucially relevant to most people's lives, and it would be sad if the lay interest had missed that point. But psychology's central importance has been widely recognized, and people are doing their honest best to learn, even though their best is limited. People are honestly trying to understand their lives, and that is good. But the finesse of separating their opinions from well founded consensus is harder. It's easy to make mistakes. I always advocate patience, and I greatly appreciate when people like you, who dedicate their live's efforts to knowing, take the time to chime in.
                  [–]ginandsoda [score hidden]  (0 children)
                  That's the same tiny group that lied about the HPV vaccine causing cancer, isn't it?
                  [–]beerybeardybear 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
                  Let me save you some time:
                  "No"
                  [–]Podcaster 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
                  What do you mean sources of conflict...? they appear to be saying that the question is still open ended despite many studies leaning towards one side. We simply don't know if mental illness plays a major role here and to take that off the table would simply be unwise. Professional or not.. it's just logical.
                  [–]JustHereForTheMemes 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
                  I'm saying that, professionally, I was unaware that the question was still considered open ended, and was keen to read any contrary views from reputable sources.
                  [–]brak10 -3 points-2 points-1 points  (3 children)
                  It sounds like it was only taken out of the "mental illness" category a few years ago and there's still controversy whether it should be considered a disorder or not.
                  Also,
                  [–]JustHereForTheMemes 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
                  You are correct about the recency of the changes. As you linked, the current ICD lists it as a disorder, which will be changed in the new edition in 2018.
                  Again, I am not personally aware of any significant professional criticism of the changes. Even though we needed to wait for a new edition, the Dsm changes were known for several years prior to release. I'm sure there is some debate between laypeople, but people still debate flat earth theory. I'm unsure how to address these criticisms with people who have no education in the field.
                  [–]brak10 -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
                  But if we're arguing with what's currently in the books, are you actually faulting me for quoting what's currently in the books?
                  Before you made it sound as if I have no scientific leg to stand on, and now it's "sure, it's in the book right now but it's going to be changed soon".
                  [–]JustHereForTheMemes 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
                  I didn't think we were arguing about what's in the books, and I'm certainly not faulting you for quoting the ICD.
                  I was discussing the current scientific consensus. As I understand it, the icd will be changed during the next revision and I've not heard anything to suggest this isn't the case. This is because the icd 10 is currently incorrect, given current scientific consensus.
                  [–]pprstrt -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
                  The first place I look on these issues is the DSM. Then to the ICD if I wanna make sure. It's well cited in both.
                  [–]nuclearseraph 44 points45 points46 points  (25 children)
                  The stance in the OP simply reflects the current medical consensus on trans people (that is, being transgender is not a mental illness), and states that bigotry will not be tolerated. You're reading far too much into this.
                  Further, this is reddit. There are far too many people on this site who, when presented with lgbt issues (specifically trans issues), opt to make bad-faith and uninformed arguments, or to simply spout bigoted and demeaning speech. This is not "identity politics run amok", let go of your pearls for goodness sake.
                  [–]brak10 -5 points-4 points-3 points  (23 children)
                  The stance in the OP simply reflects the current medical consensus on trans people (that is, being transgender is not a mental illness), and states that bigotry will not be tolerated.
                  I'm sure that was the intent, but a bunch of pretty obvious (to me) unintended consequences comes with this.
                  For example, it seems to be driven by an activist mentality, not science. They're declaring that a scientific discussion can only have one acceptable viewpoint, and the others will be considered "bigoted" or "intolerant".
                  I feel that to be truly scientific you need to be completely objective. But in order to not be ostracized from this group you have to conform to certain unsettled viewpoints.
                  let go of your pearls for goodness sake.
                  ?? Please explain
                  [–]nuclearseraph 8 points9 points10 points  (5 children)
                  The stance that "being trans is not a mental illness" is reflected in the DSM-V. Gender dysphoria is recognized as a mental disorder, but they point out that being trans is not. Further, the only treatment for gender dysphoria that has any measure of success is transitioning, that is enabling people to affirm their identities through medical treatment and expression.
                  For example, it seems to be driven by an activist mentality, not science. They're declaring that a scientific discussion can only have one acceptable viewpoint, and the others will be considered "bigoted" or "intolerant".
                  The unfortunate reality of this world is that some identities, e.g. being gay or being trans, are rendered political by the conditions of contemporary society. There is a substantial amount of misinformation, mistrust, and downright hatred towards transgender people; strict moderation is needed both to avoid alienating people in the /r/science community as well as to avoid the propagation of misinformation that tends to occur in most trans-related comment sections on reddit (much of the now-removed posts in this very thread were perfect examples). I'd hardly refer to ensuring good-faith discourse or stopping misinformation as "activism".
                  I feel that to be truly scientific you need to be completely objective.
                  Not to be mean, but this sentence is incredibly ironic. FWIW it's impossible to be objective; it's far more useful to try to ascertain and have awareness of one's biases than to strive for something unobtainable like objectivity.
                  ?? Please explain
                  I was poking fun at you for pearl-clutching over what you described as "identity politics run amok".
                  [–][deleted]  (4 children)
                  [removed]
                    [–][deleted]  (16 children)
                    [removed]
                      [–]Reddisaurusrekts -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
                      The stance in the OP simply reflects the current medical consensus
                      While this is the case, banning dissent while the issue has not yet been solidly settled seems problematic. Of course all arguments or comments should be based on scientific literature and not shit-posting, but to conflate "current consensus" for "settled science" is objectively wrong.
                      [–]fsmpastafarian9PhD | Clinical Psychology 20 points21 points22 points  (10 children)
                      The fact is that scientists simply do not know if it's a mental illness or not.
                      No, we do know. It's not. Being transgender literally does not exist as a diagnosis you can give someone. The general stance, arrived at through a good amount of literature and agreed upon by the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists, is that being transgender alone is not a mental illness. Gender dysphoria refers to the distress some (not all) transgender people may feel about being transgender.
                      [–][deleted]  (9 children)
                      [removed]
                        [–]SithLord13 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
                        There comes a point where you have to go with reasonability and consensus though. There are far more credible studies disputing anthropogenic global warming than there are disputing the fact that transgender individuals are due to mental illness. They've already said that a peer reviewed article would be acceptable no matter what its findings.
                        [–]cdstephens [score hidden]  (3 children)
                        Your analogy is off because the Church didn't "ban" that point of view due to religious reasons, they heavily disagreed with it because it was not backed up by empirical evidence at the time, and the best scientific theory at the time based on observation was not heliocentrism. Effects predicted by heliocentrism like the Coriolis effect weren't observed, and the arguments for heliocentrism at the time were flawed and did not hold up to scientific scrutiny (both now and then).
                        [–]brak10 [score hidden]  (2 children)
                        This is not true. Your post is completely false.
                        In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas
                        Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo, now an old man, published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.
                        So yes, it was due to religious reasons.The Catholic Church declared heliocentrism to be heresy and books showing evidence of it were banned. Galileo used science to back up his theories but the Church put him under house arrest.
                        [–]WikipediaPoster [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism (Italian: il processo a Galileo Galilei). In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas. Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo, now an old man, published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.
                        I am a bot. Please contact /u/GregMartinez with any questions or feedback.
                        [–]brak10 [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        Confirmed.
                        [–]Eurynom0s 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
                        It seems like the fundamental problem is that society still stigmatizes mental illness, so it's easier to just insist that something isn't a mental illness than to get society to stop stigmatizing mental illness.
                        Even if being transgender is a mental illness, there's really no value judgment beyond that. There's no reason to view that in and of itself as hate speech.
                        [–]brak10 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                        I agree. It's letting emotion get in the way. I had horrible depression when I was younger and I was resistant to get help since I "wasn't crazy". But after getting help and trying different medications you learn that your mood and your perception are heavily influenced by chemicals (or chemical imbalances) in the brain. But it would be ridiculous to claim that mental illness doesn't exist just because the classification offends some people.
                        [–]Reddisaurusrekts 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
                        Thank you. This is the point that everyone, including the mods, seem to have missed.
                        [–]qtmcgee [score hidden]  (6 children)
                        As someone who is trans (unfortunately) I can definitely attest to being broken. I constantly feel like half a person. Like I don't fit in with society. Dysphoria itself is the mental illness in my opinion. I definitely wouldn't wish it on anyone... Super interesting stuff nonetheless. I do appreciate the viewpoint I get from being trans, makes things pretty interesting. Still doesn't mean I hate being trans any less...
                        [–]drewiepoodle [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        If you ever want to talk, we'd love to have you at /r/asktransgender
                        [–]Bilbanzabar [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        What about it distresses you (if you don't mind me asking)? The only person I've known who was Trans was very open about it from her teen years. Yes, she got a LOT of scorn from others, but she never hated herself for it. I can understand the difficulty in constantly getting negativity from other people, but don't blame yourself for something others are unwilling to understand (of course, I could be presuming too much).
                        [–]MortiseLock [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        I know this is just a trite message from a stranger, but:
                        It really does get better.
                        [–]qtmcgee [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        I know, still doesn't stop me from hating myself. I pass flawlessly, have a 100% passable voice, and still feel completely disgusting and like half the person I should be. I definitely feel infinitely better than I did two years ago right before I stopped repressing/when I started mones just under two years ago but I can't help but hate the hand I was dealt. I guess you could say I'm just a bitter person who's a bit dead on the inside.
                        [–]ab_lostboy [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        With the current view here of it being "not a mental illness" do you feel better or worse because of that??
                        I can only speculate that if I felt as you, I'd hope for it to stay classified as mental illness so more research could be done, more solutions found, and perhaps a cure that changed the way I thought instead of the appearance of my genitalia??
                        [–]skinbearxett [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        A common thread on this topic is that most people lack clarity about trans issues and the details of how current science suggests we should see it. Is there anyone who can either provide a resource or create a post which summarises the scientific consensus view and details the relationship between sex, gender, gender expression, gender roles, gender dysphoria, terminology with regards to trans people (transgenderism? Trans? Transgendered?), and any other issues people feel confusion on?
                        It would also be great to have a clear breakdown with sources. Some discussions break down purely because of a lack of source material and critique, and this can be worse than just not having an opinion because you can end up overreaching and claiming scientific support for something which is not yet shown to be accurate.
                        [–]spazboy200 [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        Is reassignment surgery and/or genital reconstruction a viable treatment? Does it change gender, sex or both?
                        I've read that the suicide rate of those before surgery and after surgery doesn't change, and that many actually regret the surgery.
                        [–]Gordon_Goosegonorth [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        Scientists will never 'discover' or 'determine' whether being transgender is a mental illness because mental illness is a category that mental health professionals define as they see fit based on shifting social norms. Surely reddit is smart enough to understand this.
                        [–]Marthman [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        I'm trying to give an honest, non-offensive reply to the OP, so I hope you'll be charitable with what I'm about to say.
                        I think I find myself in the camp of transgenderism not being a mental illness. It's kind of blurry to me, but I certainly understand the difference between gender disphoria and transgenderism.
                        But I don't see how transgenderism has been empirically or scientifically demonstrated to not be a mental illness. So far as I can tell, this is an impossible endeavor. What it really seems like is that the commonly accepted stance is a philosophical position, based on definitions. In fine, what I'm suggesting is that the way you define certain words and how you think about things in general (e.g. metaphysics/ontology) will ultimately determine your position on this topic- not any empirical evidence.
                        To suggest otherwise seems to be unsubstantiated, or a mischaracterization of the issue (read: debate). To insist that the other side is necessarily engaging in hate speech and that there will be repercussions for sharing their views (even if well articulated) is essentially censorship and promoting an ideology dangerously close to the untenable scientism. To be clear, if someone is just promoting hate speech, that's one thing (e.g. "I hate transgendered people," "we should kill all transgendered people," "transgendered people deserve to burn in hell," "$#@% transgendered people" etc.) but if they're actually promoting reasonable counterarguments (because it's a philosophical issue, not one of empirical inquiry), why should they be censored?
                        For example, virtue ethics- a certainly viable and acceptable normative ethical position- is based on what Aristotle referred to as ergon and arete.
                        To keep this short, he basically argues that what is good for a being is its properly functioning as the being that it is. This extends to not only beings, but artifacts as well.
                        A knife's function is to cut things. What makes a good knife good is not that its handle can be used to hammer a nail, or that one can see oneself in the reflection of the blade- rather, it's that the knife can cut things well.
                        A big question is whether or not we can apply this to human beings. Aristotle argues that human beings do have a certain capacity, i.e, rationality. Adult humans who are not exercising their rationality are considered not to be properly functioning. Some would argue that a human that chooses to remove their genitals or transition are not properly functioning as the rational being that they are.
                        While I'm not well-versed in this area of ethics, I know there are conservative defenders of extremely similar views who do a reasonably good job in defending their views intelligently.
                        I'm not saying they're right... but is it right to outright censor the opposition? That kind of scares me.
                        [–]_Foxtrot_ 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
                        While I agree that any type of discrimination or hate speech should result in an immediate ban, I also believes that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of mental illness, or transgenderism as the result of any other external causes solely because of societal pressures, specifically in regards to gender equality.
                        Again, I'm not saying it's the correct perspective, but many times in history we have found ourselves on the wrong side. Take for example the case of Copernicus and the Earth being the center of the universe. It was such an unpopular belief that he was eventually executed for his crimes.
                        High Point in the above statement is please be open-minded, even if the opinion you're hearing contradicts contemporary social justice.
                        [–]snobocracy 36 points37 points38 points  (26 children)
                        Our official stance is that transgender is not a mental illness
                        I didn't realize science had an "official stance".
                        So now that people will be punished for saying "transgenderism is a mental disease", will there also be punishments for people who postulate "transgenders tend to have more mental diseases"?
                        Or, better yet, will there be a distinction between:
                        "Transgenders tend to have more mental diseases, and that's due to prejudicial society"; and
                        "Transgenders tend to have more mental diseases, and that seems to be naturally related to their transgenderism"
                        Also, will trans-ableism also be off-topic?
                        You know, people who think they are "a disabled person in an abled person's body"?
                        What about trans-racialism?
                        [–]Avery3R [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        You can't -ism an adjective.
                        [–]fsmpastafarian9PhD | Clinical Psychology 29 points30 points31 points  (1 child)
                        I didn't realize science had an "official stance".
                        Being transgender is quite literally not a mental disorder someone can be diagnosed with. The current, most related diagnosis is Gender Dysphoria, which refers to someone who is transgender and also experiences significant distress about their being transgender. You'll note from this diagnosis, that being transgender alone is not enough to be considered meeting criteria for the diagnosis, and in fact many transgender individuals never do. Others who meet the diagnosis at one point, may no longer meet criteria once they transition.
                        [–]kycube 20 points21 points22 points  (6 children)
                        Well you're using the phrase "transgenders" so I think I can safely assume you don't know much about the subject in general.
                        [–]BewilderedDash 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
                        When someone uses transgender as anything other than an adjective you know you're in for a rough time.
                        [–]sierraescape [score hidden]  (3 children)
                        You just used it as a noun...
                        [–]Mindelan [score hidden]  (2 children)
                        When someone uses transgender as anything other than an adjective [when referring to individuals] you know you're in for a rough time.
                        For clarity, since you seemed to misunderstand.
                        [–]sierraescape [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        Just giving you a hard time. :P
                        [–]Mindelan [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        I am not the person you replied to, just figured I would clarify since I understood what they meant.
                        [–]Bulldawglady 4 points5 points6 points  (1 child)
                        Trans-racialism, despite your obnoxious concern trolling, was originally coined and used by academics to describe an adopted child raised by a family of a different race.
                        [–]baserace 17 points18 points19 points  (10 children)
                        I didn't realize science had an "official stance".
                        Indeed. Really quite disturbing for a 'science' sub.
                        [–]feedmahfish1Grad Student|Stream Biogeography|Macroecological Modeling 31 points32 points33 points  (5 children)
                        There are official stances in all of science. Like Evolution, Round Earth, Continental Drift, and Global Warming.
                        Edit: A user deleted his comment so I will clarify even further.
                        The biomedical studies on folks who are transgender are all strongly falsifiable if you are referring to the requirement of Popperian Falsifiability, with conclusions following the guidelines of Plattian Inference, and it uses data that has strong Ayerian Verifiability with multiple replications and expansions on the topic; i.e., transgender is not some academic dart thrown at the wall to create a new buzzword for people who see themselves differently. That's what we are stating. The transgender condition that many people define themselves as has biological significance and no evidence supports it as some random mental illness/defect. That's the official stance of /r/science, which follows scientific consensus.
                        [–]regypt 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
                        Exactly. It's more like, listen, evolution is a thing, ok? if you're going to say that it isn't, you're going to need to show something extraordinary and not just small-mindedness. For the sake of keeping discussion on topic, we're going to go ahead and remove dumb posts that try to argue that evolution isn't a thing.
                        [–]Eurynom0s 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
                        "Official stance" heavily implies opinion. The way to phrase this, if they wanted to not stir the shitpot, was "the current scientific consensus is..."
                        [–]feedmahfish1Grad Student|Stream Biogeography|Macroecological Modeling -4 points-3 points-2 points  (0 children)
                        I personally believe the differentiation is a bit pedantic, but I see the point. However, we're not really worried in this case.
                        [–]beerybeardybear -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
                        Clearly, you're not a scientist.
                        [–]legayredditmodditors [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        Science is the celebration of spirited discussion, not a limitation of it.
                        [–]beerybeardybear [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        Yes, let's all spiritedly discuss phrenology. I'm sure that that will be ~valuable conversation.~
                        [–]Omena123 [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        /r/science = science ? how about the moderation teams stance. stop the concern trolling
                        [–]churakaagii 11 points12 points13 points  (8 children)
                        I'm trans and an erstwhile scientist, and while I am not convinced that gender dysphoria is 100% biological, I am nevertheless extremely glad for this policy. No matter what the cause for this phenomenon--and there may be many causes!--that is still no reason to go out of your way to deny other people basic respect and dignity.
                        If you're protesting or arguing with this policy, what are you arguing for? Your right to treat trans people like shit? How is that relevant to scientific discussion? That sort of motivation points toward you being simply hateful and fishing for any sort of authoritative source to justify it. When done with Bible quotes, that's simply odious; When done with science, it is an offense to the very nature and process of the scientific endeavor. Science is about asking interesting questions, but not presupposing the answer. That's how you get bias and junk results.
                        If you are more concerned with a semantic debate over whether trans people can be "officially" classified mentally ill, rather than simply being comfortable with affording us basic respect, then it's not hard to see that your issues are not with deep questions of biological determinism in regards to sexual and gender expressions--which is interesting and still within the bounds of conversation--but instead with your own internal bigotry.
                        Please stop.
                        [–]allysonwonderlandGrad Student|Experimental Psychology [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        I think people are missing the point of this post. Talking about transgender issues in the context of science = good. Transphobia and hate speech = bad.
                        If you are more concerned with a semantic debate over whether trans people can be "officially" classified mentally ill, rather than simply being comfortable with affording us basic respect, then it's not hard to see that your issues are not with deep questions of biological determinism in regards to sexual and gender expressions--which is interesting and still within the bounds of conversation--but instead with your own internal bigotry.
                        You hit the nail on the head.
                        [–]StumbleOn -4 points-3 points-2 points  (4 children)
                        It makes me sad that it is 2016 and we still sit around campfires and discuss the humanity of other people :/
                        [–]ab_lostboy [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        Not at all. Many people need help and support when it comes to these issues! Science has given us the power to help those people, and keeping it "around campfires because it was the humanity of other people" would've never gotten Trans rights to the place they are today.
                        [–]danmilligan [score hidden]  (1 child)
                        That's definitely not the essence of the conversation.
                        [–]StumbleOn [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        This thread is proof positive that reddit wants to attack trans people.
                        If you can't see that, I feel bad for you. Maybe learn to love people?
                        [–]SpeedyVT [score hidden]  (0 children)
                        If people treat you like shit it's most likely not because you're trans, especially on faceless Reddit, that of which starts with basic rights and dignity. It's annoying when people feel impervious to criticism of their personality because of their demographic card. Anyone can be a terrible person.
                        I believe the only valid application of biblical quotes is of reference to subject matter that correlates with a scientific finding, perhaps big bang theory. Sometimes referring to the majesty of space to heavens beyond. The bible does not arm you or any person with ways to commit harm that didn't already exist inside of you/them.
                        Actually your argument is incorrect, a trans person can be mentally ill. That is of course not because they're trans.
                        Foremost transgender/ism is a sociological development of an individual's self evaluation of their emotional, physical and vocal mannerisms for what means can be either illness, understanding or neither. This evaluation is not wrong, but is often made without the chance or opportunity to expose one's self to other societal elements that can give the person more clarity on who or what they feel their self to be. Sometimes it's not always about more exposure, but reduced exposure to society. Seriously what is defined as feminine today, was pretty peak of masculine once ages ago. Hands on the hips with a serious sass was pretty masculine 1600s. It's kind why people can perceive Freddy Mercury as the manliest man who ever lived and wore drag.
                        Please be logical.
                        [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                        [removed]
                          [–]graaahh 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
                          Thank you for fighting preemptively to restrict the type of comments that may be posted in response to the AMA. Y'all do good work. I'm not trans myself, but I have many friends who are trans or otherwise gender nonconforming and I really appreciate the show of support. Some of the people here who might not be prone to making bad judgments themselves don't seem to understand the need to head that shit off before it even starts.
                          [–]legayredditmodditors [score hidden]  (0 children)
                          Thank you for fighting preemptively to restrict the type of comments that may be posted in response to the AMA
                          That is actually the opposite of what a Science sub should be.
                          [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                          [removed]
                            [–][deleted]  (94 children)
                            [deleted]
                              [–]natePhD | Organic Chemistry[S,M] 55 points56 points57 points  (37 children)
                              If it is used as a slur, you are walking on thin ice. The thing to keep in mind is if your intention is to be hostile or dehumanize, we won't tolerate it.
                              [–][deleted]  (35 children)
                              [deleted]
                                [–]baserace 13 points14 points15 points  (60 children)
                                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.
                                [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology 30 points31 points32 points  (4 children)
                                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 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
                                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?
                                [–]cdstephens [score hidden]  (0 children)
                                Protons exist, matter is made out of atoms, to assume or believe otherwise is misinformed and goes against science. On par with flat Earth theory, beliefs that special relativity is just "Jewish physics", etc., because it goes against their worldview.
                                [–]natePhD | Organic Chemistry[S,M] 31 points32 points33 points  (48 children)
                                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.
                                [–]TheCid 9 points10 points11 points  (8 children)
                                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.
                                [–]JustHereForTheMemes 30 points31 points32 points  (4 children)
                                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.
                                [–]Protanope 3 points4 points5 points  (6 children)
                                It's shocking how many people take offense to the idea that being LGBT is not categorized as a mental illness. To say that it could possibly be redefined later is a moot point. It's like trying to argue about Pluto still being classified as a planet in 2016.
                                You add nothing relevant to the discussion in either situation.
                                [–]PlumsweetSoda 3 points4 points5 points  (5 children)
                                Isnt it defined as a mental illness where the best treatment is transitioning? Im pretty certain you cant transition without a psyche evaluation according to two of my trans friends but perhaps im wrong?
                                I just dont like that "mental illness" is synonymous with "insult"
                                [–]ImNotJesus10Grad Student | Social Psychology 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
                                Isnt it defined as a mental illness where the best treatment is transitioning?
                                No. It's not considered a mental illness.
                                [–]afluffytail 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
                                Gender dysphoria, however, is. It's in the DSM-5 and that Redditor is correct where the best "treatment" is to transition.
                                Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, however once someone has transitioned, they no longer suffer from gender dysphoria.
                                [–]allysonwonderlandGrad Student|Experimental Psychology [score hidden]  (0 children)
                                You have it confused with gender dysphoria.
                                [–]ademnus 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
                                I'm so grateful for this post. I am so tired of people who are pointlessly against other people for their differences trying to claim science has deemed them mentally ill or broken to prop up their narrative. I find myself frequently angered by these attempts to use science and medicine to threaten someone's human's rights.
                                [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                                [removed]
                                  [–]slutzombie [score hidden]  (1 child)
                                  My biggest problem with this is that almost every source listed ends with something along the lines of "more research needs to be done" "small sample size" "this is not conclusive", how is this evidence?
                                  [–]OSUCOWBOY1129BS | Biochemistry, Molecular Biology [score hidden]  (0 children)
                                  Scientific funding for controversial topics can be hard to come by. Additionally, finding large numbers of willing participants for these studies is even more difficult. It is bad form to draw large conclusions from small sample sizes, but that doesn't discredit the research at all. The evidence that is reported is what the researchers were able to gather with the resources they had at their disposal. Because our understanding of science can always change, saying things such as "this is not conclusive" and "more research needs to be done" allows for our understanding to incorporate new ideas and new research as it becomes available.
                                  [–][deleted]  (1 child)
                                  [removed]
                                    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
                                    REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
                                    css by /u/qtxπ Rendered by PID 31412 on app-295 at 2016-05-26 06:37:03.011696+00:00 running 5835d0a country code: NL.
                                    Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
                                    0%
                                     
                                    10%
                                     
                                    20%
                                     
                                    30%
                                     
                                    40%
                                     
                                    50%
                                     
                                    60%
                                     
                                    70%
                                     
                                    80%
                                     
                                    90%
                                     
                                    100%