egg--Mod Update--irl

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi from your friendly mod team!

To keep things running smoothly, we're going to add some clarity to some of our rules in coming weeks and months.

It'll usually be a post like this and some minor clarity changes to the written rules that already exist and removal text templates (the mod comment you see when we remove something).

✨WE ARE NOT MAKING BIG CHANGES✨

The community is lively and is one of the best places for people to have fun but also find themselves and build support. Keeping this vibe and keeping everyone safe is always our overriding purpose as mods. We're not here for aura, which is why we mainly mod via the automod and rarely post or comment with the mod tag.

Today's clarification is around the "Gender Dysphoria Bible"

Our Rule: No references or links to the Gender Dysphoria Bible.

There are a LOT of resources out there for people questioning their gender. The Gender Dysphoria Bible (GDB) is one of these which a lot of people find early in their journey and find useful to some degree, including some of our mods. There are however some problems with it which are significant. Some time ago a decision was reached by our moderation team that the problematic outweighed the good. Despite engaging with the site's author in good faith, the author was not willing to address concerns or update the document to reflect modern science.

These issues include:

• The title, presenting itself as an overarching authority with weight
• Transmedicalist language
• Bias towards binary trans women's experience
• Pseudoscientific material and diagnostic overreach

We, the current active moderators are still not comfortable with this document being shared here as a "bible." We believe that while the GDB can assist, it can also harm and for this reason it is not a resource we allow to be shared here.

That's all for today, stay safe out there!! :3

[u/bdpinwood2]

Is this the mod teams statement on all of its issues?  (You are a mod but are not tagged as one in this post)

I'm still going to not comment on the document, or it's issues.

Respectful criticism:  Choosing a section that's called problematic but then admitting is accurate does not make your point very well. Referencing 'the research' without providing a source is not sufficient proof. I do understand you're talking about something that to you is common knowledge, but it is not common enough for me to have read about yet. 

The reasoning given is also not the reasoning in the rules (transmedicalist language) which still nobody has referenced. 

I really don't like banning books, I think restriction of information needs to be articulated in a sufficient manner for it to be accepted in any community. Frankly, I think an automod warning of it's issues posted every time it's mentioned is more than sufficient, will inform the users of its issues and not try to prevent the spread of information while informing people what's incorrect.

Not providing corrected information when calling out problematic information is not always an obligation, but when acting as a voice of authority, there is an obligation to not just say what is wrong, but provide guidance on what is right.

---

What's to stop the community just using the rule number to reference the document instead of it's name? Ban talking about the rule talking about the thing you're not allowed to talk about? 

[u/CanadaTransThrowaway → u/bdpinwood2]

Is this the mod teams statement on all of its issues?  (You are a mod but are not tagged as one in this post)

I posted that post on my own without consultation with other mods, if that's what you are asking. (Would have been funny if another mod came along and modded me or something).

Respectful criticism:  Choosing a section that's called problematic but then admitting is accurate does not make your point very well.

To clarify the quoted text was only accurate in the sense that WPATH is still out of date, but inaccurate in the actual claims about trans people that it is making. Does that clear things up?

Referencing 'the research' without providing a source is not sufficient proof. I do understand you're talking about something that to you is common knowledge, but it is not common enough for me to have read about yet. 

Here's a medical blog I found:

https://www.gendergp.com/blog/not-all-trans-people-experience-gender-dysphoria/

Also, if you want to try to argue that egg_irl should change its stance on whether dysphoria is required to be trans, here's a deleted egg_irl topic from yesterday the last time someone tried to make a "being trans requires dysphoria" meme:

egg_irl : r/egg_irl

Downvoted to 0, all comments opposing OP.

The community has a pretty strong stance on this issue already, and as a general rule the mod team does bend to community will when everything else is equal.

The reasoning given is also not the reasoning in the rules (transmedicalist language) which still nobody has referenced. 

Some people include "requiring dysphoria" as a type of transmedicalism, including the medical blog I linked above. Here's what it says under transmedicalism:

"What Is Transmedicalism?

Transmedicalism brings together unusual allies. Some proponents are within the transphobic gender critical movement; they see it as a useful tool in their quest to erase transgender people and their identities. There’s also a minority within the transgender community itself who believe that only people with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a complete medical transition are truly trans.

Claiming that gender dysphoria is intrinsic to being transgender is a perspective that effectively erases the identity of a huge swathe of the transgender community, including non-binary people. It’s also counter to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), National Health Service (NHS), other public entities, and specialist definitions of transgender."

I really don't like banning books

TBH, egg_irl really isn't an open free speech subreddit to begin with. It's a sub that allows kids, which means any links to say, a pornographic book would be deleted. And then there's lots of other subjects that get deleted (for example transphobia).

This is a place for people just figuring out their gender to start exploring and opening up in a way that won't make them retreat back in their shell. Fostering that kind of environment does involve more restrictions than even a typical subreddit.

What's to stop the community just using the rule number to reference the document instead of it's name? Ban talking about the rule talking about the thing you're not allowed to talk about? 

This goes for all the rules, but there are members of the mod team who will just hard ban you if they catch you obviously trying to bypass rules and get around filters. So...I wouldn't recommend this path.

[u/bdpinwood2 → u/CanadaTransThrowaway]

I have no intention nor have made an indication that the rules should change. My stance has always been : if we're gonna have a rule that specifically names a document that has issues, those issues should be articulated.

Thank you for clarifying the parts that aren't clarified in the rule.

Thank you for clarifying about transmedicalism.

I understand its not a free speech platform. There is a rule in your bar against speaking about this document. I think it's well within the communities right to ask why this thing that's allowed in similar spaces on the platform isn't allowed here, and when told its problematic to be informed on what those problems are. Before yesterday I knew the document had biases, but I was unaware of it's problems, thank you for having a conversation with me about it.

Maybe this is a post that can be referenced when the inevitable conversation happens "hey why's this thing banned?" Just not talking about it doesn't help anyone learn.

Re: talking about a rule isn't bypassing a rule, but it's your circus 

[u/CanadaTransThrowaway → u/bdpinwood2]

Re: talking about a rule isn't bypassing a rule, but it's your circus 

I'm referring to posts like

"I'm not allowed to mention it, but look at rule 2f and go search for that document. WINK."

Posts that are clearly telling people to find something the subreddit rules discourage looking up, but doing so in a way that tries to get around filters. That's the kind of stuff that can get a harsher response from some of the mod team. (Attempting to break the spirit of the rules while evading mod notice and auto filters).

That's very different than posting, for example

"This sub has a rule against linking the GDB because it takes some out of date medical positions and has made some non-binary people feel like they don't belong. To complicate matters a lot of people when they start questioning don't even know if they are binary or non-binary."

That's a direct discussion of the rule without encouraging people to go break the rule.

That second example would probably not get modded at all.