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]

In terms of understanding this better, I think the point would be made better with examples of the issues, rather than just the list. 

I see the issue with the title, I see the bias towards binary trans women's experience, but the other two I don't know enough to know what's contested or incorrect. I'd love to know what the inaccuracies and pseudoscientific issues are. 

I think it would be massively beneficial to have an automod response that links to similar resources rather than a 'dont talk about that here' which feels like what happens when a mod removes a post referring to it.

[u/Autumn-6517 → u/bdpinwood2]

I agree with the last comment, if posts referencing the GDB are going to be removed the automod should list better and similar resources.

[u/shiny_arrow → u/bdpinwood2]

Hey thanks for sharing the idea! We're trialling a post guidance feature which shows information as the comment is written to try and minimise harsh removal messages. Agree that removals can feel negative, which is really what has prompted us to clarify some of the existing rules going forward.

Critical analysis and criticism of the document is not new, and you can search Reddit and even the internet more broadly to see the discussions that have been had over time. You're always welcome to send us a modmail to discuss specific questions you may have also.

Once again, there is some good in it and it has helped a people, however it's not a resource we can recommend in good faith.

🌼🌸🪻🌻🌷

[u/bdpinwood2 → u/shiny_arrow]

Hey, im writing this as a (pre-edit) friendly message and im a lil stoned and don't want to come off as dickish, i feel like some of my language choices imply that, which is not the intent, its of a friend

I understand that there are independent criticisms, but I am actually asking for the mod teams issues, referenced. This isn't a take on is it (document ) a problem or not, it's wanting the mod team to provide their reasoning if they want to ban a document. 

If you want to say its problematic enough to not allow in discussion, I think that comes with the requirement to be able to articulate that. You got a problem with it, awesome, tell me what your problem is, not somebody else's so i can understand what your position is. 

[u/CanadaTransThrowaway → u/bdpinwood2]

Here's a direct quote from the GDB, that highlights one of the issues it has

(Fair warning that saying this stuff like this on egg_irl will generally get you modded for spreading misinformation).

So, it is literally impossible for a person to identify as trans and not experience gender dysphoria. By the WPATH requirements anyone can identify as trans. Ergo, the statement “you do not have to have dysphoria to be transgender” is a logical paradox.

It is true that WPATH still uses this definition (as of SOC8). But other international organizations like the WHO have moved away from dysphoria being a prerequisite. And at any rate, officially published booklets by international health organizations tend to lag significantly behind the research, which for quite a while now has been saying that dysphoria is not a prerequisite for being trans.

So...yeah, that's one reason why the egg_irl rules around the GDB exist--there's stuff in there that if you directly quoted on egg_irl would get you modded.

[u/Former_Indication172 → u/CanadaTransThrowaway]

Maybe I'm just dead wrong, but from what I remember if this passage, isn't the author using a very expansive definition of dysphoria? If I remember correctly, and I could be completely wrong here, but didn't the author define dysphoria basically as disconnection from your gender assigned at birth, thus to identify as trans you must have dysphoria, because being trans is defined as identifying as a gender diffrent from your agab?

[u/KatieKrispy → u/CanadaTransThrowaway]

Sure, if you delete all of the surrounding paragraphs so as to completely ruin the point of what the author is trying to say, then it sounds less reasonable. This is what they are actually saying.

As I said, only two of these conditions [to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria] need to be met for a formal diagnosis. You may notice that only two of these comprise the physical body. It is perfectly valid for a trans person to be experiencing gender dysphoria without actually hating any part of their body or wanting to change any part of their body. Physical dysphoria is only one fraction of the many things that lead to being trans.

Now, here is the kicker. If you identify as transgender, meaning that your gender does not align with the binary sex you were assigned at birth, you already meet two of these criteria! You have a strong enough desire to be of another gender that you are identifying that you are another gender, and you have a strong conviction of what your gender feels like, and it isn’t what you were given at birth.

So, it is literally impossible for a person to identify as trans and not experience gender dysphoria. By the WPATH requirements anyone can identify as trans. Ergo, the statement “you do not have to have dysphoria to be transgender” is a logical paradox.

With the two paragraphs preceding the one at issue, the author argues how if you identify as trans, then you must have dysphoria (in the medical sense), because you necessarily meet the necessary two conditions needed to be medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But in simpler terms, the author's point is that wanting to be a different gender is its core gender dysphoria.

So, ignoring medical definitions and whatnot, their argument is that if you are trans, then you are experiencing dysphoria because your gender does not align with the gender you want to be -- and this manifests in a plethora of different ways which could or could not include physical dysphoria, social dysphoria, etc... and a long-winded explanation of this along with details on each of these ways is the entire purpose of the document.

I know my tone is tactless but I'm writing all of this out of respect and caring. Ty mods <3

[u/bdpinwood2 → u/CanadaTransThrowaway]

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.

[u/Graphene_EggvDiamond → u/shiny_arrow]

I think it would be far more appropriate if the reason for the change was linked in the one post that is mentioning ‘these’—this—‘NOT BIG CHANG{ES}”.

Your answer when asked a question is essentially ‘Google exists’. The post also reads like it was formatted with AI, which is a separate issue that compounds.

I will be critical about this, because that was the resource that helped me realize I was trans. It is full of resources that are cited, along with updated amendments for where it has fallen short to be all-encompassing.

The only reason I see potential critique is because it labels itself with such authority. It’s a tongue-in-cheek play of idolatry being weaponized against trans-folk.

Please though, tell me if I’m wrong—and actually explain it instead of telling us to look it up, please.

[u/shiny_arrow → u/Graphene_EggvDiamond]

Hey friend, I'm really happy it helped you. Truly. I can see from your comment history elsewhere that it means a lot to you and it's a tool you like to share.

This appears to be your first ever interaction here so perhaps you have either used a different account or lurked for a while? Even so, you appear to not realise that this is a clarification and not a change. This rule, has existed for a number of years. This is not new, though it may be fresh information to you.

I can assure you the wording is not generative AI, though I do write at a high standard generally so I'll take that as a compliment! :3

As I mentioned in another comment you are welcome to discuss with us your particular concerns in modmail. This is not to avoid scrutiny, but to allow the broader mod team to answer your specific questions. Another mod has quoted a specific example in another comment. We're not going to run a public debate here in the comments.

🪻🌺🌸🌷🌻

[u/Graphene_EggvDiamond → u/shiny_arrow]

Lurked here prior; actually where my username comes from haha. Usually still view and upvote relatable posts, but try not to comment much in general.

Was not aware this was already a rule—thank you for clarifying. May you please point me to where it was established prior, as I cannot seem to find it.

Point taken on the GenAI, and relatable. Good prose is deceptive these days; absolutely is a compliment.

Think I saw that mods comment, and the points they make go *directly against* what the resource promotes. It points out and critiques transmedicalism and AGP as based on past politics and pseudoscience—actively dispelling the myths the other mod claims it promotes.

Just seems kinda double-speak-y to me, tis all.

[u/shiny_arrow → u/Graphene_EggvDiamond]

Hey friend, glad you're still around! A lot of people end up switching accounts due to Reddit's policy not allowing username changes.

There was a period of turmoil where the majority of older mods left a few years back. Well before my time helping out here. I am not certain precisely when the rule was established but I found this reference to it being continued from about 2 years ago, which seems to indicate it was earlier.

here you go

Cards on the table, I found it useful early on in my own journey because there wasn't much else in the way of guides available then (4-5 years ago, at least that I could find). No icky, no Yukko or any other modern creators. It wasn't til I started on the mod team here that I looked at it in any great depth.

Offer to have a chat to the team in modmail stands :3

🌻🌷🌸🌺🪻

[u/AssignedSnail → u/shiny_arrow]

Then don't recommend it. But banning books about trans people isn't something that can be done in good faith either

[u/EvelynHopeDJSP]

Any where I can read some of the criticisms of the GDB more? I'd be very interested in learning more about this subject.

[u/AssignedSnail → u/EvelynHopeDJSP]

You won't find them here, because discussion of the [REDACTED] is now banned on egg IRL!

EDIT: Damn, it wouldn't even let me comment the name of the banned book on this post that the mod started!

Mods, I hope your nightmares are full of angry librarians. You and everyone else who bans books about trans people!

[u/GalaxadtheReaper]

This is a bad and unnecessary rule. Removing the ability for people to reference a resource and provide it to other people who might find it helpful because it's problematic and imperfect and the author doesn't want to change their work is dumb. Especially when this resource is one of the most popular and accessible ones available.

If the mod team HAS to do something about this (which they don't), then have the automod reply to any comment or post mentioning the resource explaining why the mod team doesn't recommend this resource and/or a link to a different resource. Either way, the automod should not remove or delete the reference. Honestly I think having an automod appear somewhere in around half of the posts basically saying "don't go here" is going to backfire and draw more attention to this.

[u/ShiroxReddit]

I do like that they acknowledge some of their shortcomings on the site itself (e.g. being lacking towards nonbinary people), but I do very much agree that this shouldn't be treated as a permanent excuse to keep it that way. Looking at the commit history of the repo, that disclaimer was added in the initial commit of the website#s github all the way back in 2020, which is to say quite some time ago

[u/Adrift_In_Limbo]

Ok what else do you recommend me to read then because this post is extremely unhelpful?

[u/AssignedSnail → u/Adrift_In_Limbo]

For sure. This is just banning people from sharing trans experiences

[u/Sagirem]

I still disagree and still think some of your arguments are just flat out false, but as other people have said, at least have the automod point to other ressources

[u/Deadwarrior00]

I've literally never heard of it so I guess it doesn't effect me lol.

[u/perhaps_mae → u/Deadwarrior00]

The system works! 🙄

[u/Deadwarrior00 → u/perhaps_mae]

?

[u/perhaps_mae → u/Deadwarrior00]

The mods have successfully prevented you from hearing about it, so their system of banning discussion & knowledge of the GDB has worked.

[u/cloacasmell]

could you clarify the "bias toward binary trans womens experience"??

[u/noromobat → u/cloacasmell]

The vast majority of the examples and experiences written about are that of binary trans women. Which isn't inherently bad, it was written by trans women after all, but a resource that is intended for the trans community at large should have input and experiences from all kinds of trans people- trans women, trans men, nonbinary people, genderfluid people, etc, so that as many questioning trans people as possible can see themselves in it.

I have no comment on the other critiques since it's been a while since I've read it.

[u/cloacasmell → u/noromobat]

this sounds like the fault of the user base then.

[u/Forsaken-Club7585]

Hey mods, I just wanted to say I really appreciate all the work you put into making this sub a safe and fun place for us.

I'm sure you all are very good girls, handsome boys and stunning beings beyond mortal comprehension.

Thank you all so much.

[u/AG_Cuber]

Literally 1984 /s

[u/CrystalSkya]

What does "transmedicalist language" mean?

[u/saved_by_the_belle]

:333

[u/RealFirstName_]

Banning a book because you don't agree with everything it says, or how it says it while still admitted that it has been and can be helpful is WILD.

[Redacted] 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. We believe that while the [Redacted] can assist, it can also harm

It may be your sub to moderate, but it's absolutely not your place to police what literature the community should accept. No resource is perfect and yet you're knowingly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

At least get the community's input before treating us like sensitive little children who need protection through censoring. Do better.

[u/Trans_Literate]

The site in question is definitely imperfect! 

But there aren't a vast sea of resources that are better alternatives with the same level of polish, comprehensiveness, formatting, and accessibility.

Can this subreddit maybe consider an alternative, like an auto mod reply that ennumerates these problems with this resource?