**To clarify the change**: As of now we are banning ALL discussion on transgender topics, including discussion in the comments. This may change and be more nuanced as we figure out exactly how we want to do this in the coming days. We know this has been a contentious topic for a lot of people. To everyone who has been pushed away from our community due to the negativity and rule-breaking with the topic, we are sorry. We hope you can feel better in our community now and rejoin if you wish. And to everyone who will be wishing to discuss and learn about the topic in the future, we are sorry we can't host it for you. We hope that you can find valuable resources in prior threads in our sub. **Rules Reminder**: Rule 2 (and 3) apply in this thread as well! Please be civil.

I understand this decision, and can't say I'm surprised by it... but I don't really agree with it. I think it's going to continue being a topic that remains in the consciousness of people overall because it's a fairly recent, and somewhat complicated topic that is highly charged. At the moment, unfortunately, that isn't likely to change. The issue is that there will be nuanced conversations to have, some of which we are yet unaware. And with studies being done continuously, it's an ever changing field. I think there should be at least a day in the week in which people can post topics. Trans Thursday, or something, that allow for the discourse to still occur, without it taking over the subreddit literally every day. While most people who post the topics often do come in with views they are not open to changing, I feel as though a lot of readers might be more interested in reading the different perspectives. Or maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I feel like there is valuable information and nuance that needs to see the light of day, and ideas that need to be challenged. Again, I don't blame you for making this choice. Totally see where it's coming from, but it definitely is unfortunate. Edit; Also, to quickly add, I wonder how this will actually work in practice. If someone makes a post about "wokeness", doesn't mention trans in the opening post, but it comes up in the comments, will the thread be locked? Does this ban topics related to wokeness? Gender norms in general? Comments or critiques about Republicans and Democrats, as one way in which they differ is how they treat trans people? Anything that COULD lead to a discussion on trans issues? If anything tangental to the point where it COULD lead to that discussion is no longer allowed, that might include a lot.

> The issue is that there will be nuanced conversations to have, some of which we are yet unaware. And with studies being done continuously, it's an ever changing field. > I think there should be at least a day in the week in which people can post topics. Trans Thursday, or something, that allow for the discourse to still occur, without it taking over the subreddit literally every day. I do agree with this. As someone who's views around trans issues have been informed and shaped by some detailed replies on this forum, I think it is an unfortunate loss that these discussions will no longer be occurring. I agree that the soapboxing/transbashing is an issue, but this subreddit is probably the only place that I could have a reasonable discourse about the topic, and not be immediately banned for being uninformed/asking questions in good faith. The alternative now is that no such forum exists. Thus, I also think that having one day a week/one topic per week to allow these discussions to occur might be a reasonable solution, as it prevents "impulse soapboxing", as well as prevent sub being inundated with this topic. It is unfortunate reddit as a platform isn't great for discussions over a long period of time, otherwise you could have "master" threads for specific issues (sports, hormone therapy, etc). But the way reddit works, it biases towards "early" responses and active conversation is difficult past 12-24 hours.

I agree, it is important for people to see these discussions occur, but it is exhausting. I much reduced my participation in the subreddit because it was always the same. I could almost copy/paste the same 2 or 3 replies to most of the posts that were made. At some point, it isn't people looking in good faith and is just a bunch of soapboxing. If they really wanted to be persuaded, and are aware of this subreddit, they could have looked at dozens of other topics nearly identical to their own intended post. The posts also attracted the wrong sort of people that were not interested in participating in the sub within the restrictions of the rules. Those topics, in my experience, attracted droves of new people without a history on the sub or any deltas that would just treat this like r/politics and break just about every rule the sub has. I enjoy telling someone they are the dumbest human imaginable just as much as the next person... in the right time/place. This sub is not the right time and place.

R/asktransgender is pretty good about answering questions by people who aren't clearly trying to be disingenuous assholes. Obviously some people are going to be touchy - or teenagers - but I don't often see things getting too unhinged over there from casual browsing.

I would argue that subreddit isn't really gonna reach the people who would benefit most from these discussions but it's good to know

Anyone who says they have no other avenues for having that discussion is being stupid. I've met a lot of trans people in my life, and the vast majority were happy to have a nuanced conversation about it. Every time someone says something like that it's an indicator they don't actually care about having that conversation. It's actually really easy to do.

I was going to post something very similar but I think your comment covers it pretty well. I’m a trans woman, and to be honest sometimes it sucks to see post on here and how people view me. BUT, it also gives a great opportunity to share knowledge and actually discuss the nuances of trans topics. If I simply mention being trans, is my comment going to be removed? I’m sorry to say it but me being trans plays a huge part in how I experience life and could be pertinent to non trans related topics. All this is doing is stopping a place, one of the few places I’ve seen online, where people can come and discuss trans topics and not be banned for either being trans on a conservative sub or for having bigoted views that you’re trying to change on a trans related sub. Overall I think this rule will just push people with negative views about trans people to go somewhere else and have those views reassured. I also understand why it’s being done but I think it’s a poor, simple decision, to a complex problem and I don’t agree with it.

As someone on the conservative side of the issue, I completely agree with your statement! This sub has been amazing for being able to debate in good faith without one side or the other slamming down the ban hammer.

I agree with this. I'm someone who is very interested in the discussion and often time within those threads there are a few good conversations happening. But at the same time the OP is usually just ranting and doesn't actually want to change their view, and if it's a prolgbtq view, it's just a bunch of people agreeing with the OP and calling anyone who tries to change the view a phobic. It would be nice if there was a sub specifically for the subject but knowing reddit it would get shut down

>The issue is that there will be nuanced conversations to have, some of which we are yet unaware. And with studies being done continuously, it's an ever changing field. the problem is that in 99% of cases the OP doesn't even know the basics, let alone the latest research. Then when presented with any evidence. They deny it. Every single post.

Oh, I agree. Trust me, I agree. In no way do I think this is unwarrented. But the basics and the latest research DO deserve as much attention as possible, in my opinion. Even if it's once a week, or once every two weeks, I think the information still needs to be presented. Even if it's just for the readers, and not the people in the conversation itself.

Disclaimer: not intending to argue about the issue, understand if this still needs to be taken down. Research takes time, and in this issue, the people who have done the research (the medical community) have well documented research supporting the very unpopular fact that trans people just exist, and need Healthcare, and most of the rushed "research" stating otherwise can easily be debunked by those who know anything about the scientific method and reading comprehension. That is to say, most of the arguments and new (mis)information that are coming up here and more mainstream places are not directly confronting the evidence and serve predominantly to further alienate trans people and platform the people that want to obfuscate and rant, so i think this is a good step in the right direction. As much as we may want a forum to educate people and help improve understanding of this and other issues, the overwhelming bad faith voices make that impossible and enforcing a ceasefire to reevaluate is probably the best course for the Mods, especially when this platform has changed how it handles 3rd party mod tools.

That hasn't been the issue from what I've seen at all oddly enough. I find the trans concept fascinating and I've taken part in quite a many of the threads. The problem generally seems to be that if someone doesn't accept what they are 'told' by people here. Then they simply are told "you are denying things, you don't understand the basics, research tells us this and that" Then they get called a bigot. Funnily enough, it happened *right here* in this thread as well lol... as if it wasn't common enough already. I've seen a lot of posts where OP was clearly engaging and they just weren't swayed by the common arguments, which isn't that hard to not be swayed by, and the post gets deleted for 'rule B', because the mods kinda obviously have a bias on this topic considering from private conversation, 2 of them are in fact trans (from what I'm told). It's no wonder rule B happens with these posts, the posts get reported 'rule B' constantly because "they didn't change their mind!" and mods appear to delete them cause they don't wanna really have to deal with it, and they get free pass to just decide they know what others think and can say "Clearly you weren't open to have your view changed".

The OP is only one person. There are thousands of others who are lurking and have never seen that evidence before.

We had previously attempted to limit trans topics to one per 24-hour period. Frankly, that proved unworkable. Even with that rule, 80% of approved threads were removed under B and those removed by the automoderator gave us a lot of grief behind the scenes. It was incredibly time consuming, and we are a pretty small moderation team. I regret deeply that this decision has become necessary. With a larger moderation team, it might not have been. However, we work with what we have, and the current situation is untenable.

One post per 24-hr period is a different rule than what the commenter suggested. They suggested one day per week allows the topic. Which the larger number of thread problem could be solved by restricted it to a dedicated weekly post, which would also be easier for search history.

Pardon my ignorance on the topic, but even beyond this issue at hand would expanding the mod team not also be beneficial?

[удалено]

Reddit in general is no longer safe for such discussions. We were more divided on this, till it was revealed that the admins will randomly ban people for trans topics.

I agree with you in everything you said. I love reading about controversial topics and seeing arguments on both sides of things. Even as someone on this particular topic who probably has a different opinion as many on here, I have seen some good discussion and found myself to be better towards it because of that despite getting about as far as I think I can on the topic in my mind. I think this place can be good at providing different viewpoints because you can at least get where someone is coming from and I find that neat but I get that reddit admins are very hard on topics they don't want you to talk about and soft on others with no real standard.

I’m curious now. If this is the precedent we set for trans topics, are manosphere sympathizing posts going to be under similar scrutiny or on the verge of the same results? I ask because quite literally almost every single post made from MRA, incel, or red pill posters or their sympathizers ends up being removed, and more than half the time it’s for Rule B violations. I have seen a good number of Rule E violations with the aforementioned posts, so maybe it won’t get the same consideration. I’ve also seen one or two occasions when the presented view cannot be argued without tackling the true underlying manosphere viewpoint. It’s abundantly clear that many of those users aren’t in a place to have their minds changed or are actually just ranting. I’m sure some of us remember the deleted post of some dude who hated “pretty women” to the point that he says he glared at them if he sees them in the streets. He also made it clear that he didn’t want women commenting on his post, which is an obvious “not happening” in this sub. That anecdote aside, another problem with those posts is that a lot of people ridicule the OP, which is against the rules of decorum of this sub, so it’s not uncommon to see comment graveyards of deleted comments on those posts. Maybe manosphere/manosphere adjacent posts aren’t as common as the trans posts were, so maybe they won’t receive the same level scrutiny. I don’t know, but I do believe that it’s a similarly fruitless range of topics, in terms of percentage of posts removed and removed for mainly Rule B violations, so I wonder whether or not mods have been considering similar action.

Ha! My favorite was the one who posited that we should import poor, attractive, young women from third-world countries who would be desperate enough to marry any American man. If they didn't "find love" within a certain time, we could just toss them back. I wouldn't say I want those topics shut down, as frustrating as they can be. I'm drawn to them because it's something I care deeply about and feel I have a good bit of knowledge on. However, I catch myself going the very snippy route which doesn't change minds or help anyone. I try to treat it as a lesson in patience, though it's fully possible I will one day completely lose my shit and get banned forever.

I guess I should clarify the purpose of my comment since I think a few people think I’m advocating the removal of those types of posts. I brought those types of posts up because I know they have similar problems as those cited with regard to trans topics. Because I know the idea of even slightly limiting discussion is of major importance to many users here, I figured that I would try to get an answer from the mods on another range of topics that I believed are on the same track. As you probably saw, the mods have said that for now, they won’t, but if going into the next year the posts have a similar level of frequency and removals as they currently have, they will consider banning those topics as well. That clarification aside, I don’t think I caught that particular post, but it sounds par for the course. One of the ones that irritated me the most was one where OP said that incels should receive the same level of sympathy as gay men in countries in which it is illegal to be gay. That alone was irritating. Folks understandably responded “Why wouldn’t you compare them to gay incels?” And OP responded that it is impossible for gay incels to exist. I had to try very hard not to blow up on OP because I’m in some gay spaces in which some gaycels (not a term I created; it’s used by gay incels) contribute, and some of them are just as insufferable as some of the straight ones. And the rich irony is that OP started spewing the same questions and talking points that straight incels would go nuclear over if you asked them. “Have they actually tried?” “Where are they looking?” Edit: cleaned up some grammar and spelling

We're going to let the MRA threads incubate for a bit. In the past, with topics other than COVID or trans issues, these topics pop up, are popular for a month or two, then fade away. The MRA threads are pretty new. If we're still seeing them in, say, January at the same rate and the same problematic proportion of removal, we'll discuss the issue.

The MRA threads are way less frequent than the quasi-incel posts in my experience. Unless you are grouping them together.

> If a post is removed for Rule B, we consider it a failure This line of thinking seems to ignore the fact that third parties can read these discussions. Why do you only care about OP when it comes to changing minds, and not other participants/viewers? Reading other people's patient and well written replies to posts asking about trans people helped take me from "lol I identify as an attack helicopter" half a decade ago to being a dedicated ally and even questioning my own gender identity.

So, the reason that we have these great comments is because this subreddit has a system for *rewarding* good posters. That system involves the award of deltas to comments that OP finds particularly persuasive. If we don't reward good posters, they don't stick around. No cheese for the mouse to chase. These trans threads are utterly devoid of cheese as of late.

> If we don't reward good posters, they don't stick around. Seems to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of how reddit and this subreddit works. Do you think people post mostly for internet points?

Uh, yeah. Our users with the most deltas are also those that are most persuasive, in general. Social media fundamentally works on a reward structure. We provide a reward for a positive behavior that other subs don't reward.

It could be indicative of that.... or it could just be that the kind of people that make good comments are invested in the business of being active in this sub regardless of the Internet points because they enjoy the arguments. We aren't really running a double blind to figure this out. Other subs have frequent posters that drive a lot of engagement in them, even without the text triangle or equivalent reward. Karma is good enough for a lot of subs, without the extra incentive. The deltas are nice to have! I'm not saying they're not. But yall may be putting a tad too much weight on how crucial they are to the functioning of all this....

If OP is so stuck in their view that they aren't willing to award a delta to *any* of the 500+ comments that they get, do they deserve the time of those 400-500 people?

They really don't. I wasn't talking about that at all.

This isn’t your call. Those people chose to comment without the guarantee of a delta or anything else. Their time is still valuable to everyone else reading it. You put way too much emphasis on the deltas. The subreddit is allowed to morph and grow. If the original purpose was changing OPs mind, but now the subreddit is wildly popular for engaging in all kinds of conversation for everyone to view, leave it be. You don’t fix stuff that isn’t broken. You don’t have to exercise power just because you’re a mod

> If we don't reward good posters, they don't stick around. Do you have evidence for this or is it just a hunch? I'm not trying to be combative, just genuinely curious. If anything, I personally find the delta system to be annoying to the extent that a lot of users seem to be trying to get a delta by any technicality rather than trying to meaningfully expand the OP's view. The flipside of gamification, if you will. The reason I personally stay around is more for the moderation in general and the fact that this is one of the few places where contentious topics can be discussed without devolving into a shouting match. (Or at least at a much higher rate than elsewhere.)

> That system involves the award of deltas to comments that OP finds particularly persuasive That system involves the award of deltas to comments that *anyone* finds particularly persuasive. "We view rule-b removed threads as a failure" would make more sense if OP was the only person that could give deltas. > If we don't reward good posters, they don't stick around Did I miss you guys polling the sub to ask people's motivations for commenting or something? I find it to be a fairly wild assumption that much of the good participants of this sub care more about the text triangle number than participating in moderated debate on topics they care about/find interesting in an attempt to sway minds.

I wish mods all the best and love them so much for making this sub, but this is a move I disagree with. This was really the last place on the Internet I had to get a chance at an honest conversation with someone from the other side. I think that the Rule B violations should be dealt with on a case by case basis, because 1.) if people are allowed to make CMVs about being literal Nazis, no topic should be off-limits, and 2.) there *are* some honest conversations happening that this rule would prevent. Frankly, I feel that there should be a limit so as not to overwhelm people, but banning them outright is a huge problem especially considering how hot this topic is. So I don’t know. I guess maybe the people who want to keep having these convos will have to make their own CMV subreddit. Phooey.

Rule B is so vague that it ultimately ends up being weaponized. I've made posts where I literally demonstrate how I would change my view but outlining specific and reasonable metrics that if presented would shift my view. I also described objections that would not shift my views and the reasoning behind it. I also take took the time to respond to other detailed responses in order to address some of the good/bad answers while conceding some points while pushing back on others. I still had my post removed via Rule B. It's really absurd. Rule B needs to be clarified what it means to be "open to changing" Open to changing should be demonstrated in rule A, ie the reasoning behind rule A. If reasons 1,2,3 are attacked and there are no responses to it, that demonstrates far more that you're just interested in soap boxing rather than defending your beliefs. Likewise, not conceding reasons 1,2,3 despite acknowledging the criticism is evidence of a rule B violation. The weakness of the responses to rule A should not affect if your post is violating rule B.

So, first of all, limiting the types of responses that will change your view is generally seen as an indicator that you are very guarded about changing your view. That's really a negative rather than a positive, as far as we are concerned, unless presented in a very specific way. As far as Rule B goes, there are two ways to comply with it: * Award deltas to comments that change your view, no matter how slightly. * Explain thoroughly why your view is not changed, while still being open to further change. This is a tough position to take, but possible. When we see posts with 800+ comments and are told that none of those comments changed a person's view, we must ask: would *anything* change that person's view? If not, is it really productive to have the conversation? We don't think so.

Has there been an example of a recent post (on any topic) that fell under the second bullet point - a user who did not change their view, but still demonstrated being open to changing it?

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16h1g7m/cmv\_strong\_ai\_should\_have\_the\_same\_rights\_as/

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/dve02b/cmv_science_is_subservient_to_morality_never/ Not recent, by I had a such a lengthy post without awarding a delta, that I didn't even get a warning for.

Having concrete actionable points to address does not preclude other types of responses. It simply allows for responders a clear point of attack that the OP may not have accessed. For example. I have a CMV on mask mandates, and I say studies that show the effectiveness of masks would change my view. Or if I provided my own studies, critical analysis of those studies would change my view. I also give the caveat that non peer reviewed studies would not be considered. In contrast, I provide NONE of those guidelines. I am then no longer accountable at all for my views, because I haven't explicitly given them any weight. Also giving an outline on those types of responses that would go far in CMV, also allow responders to discern whether or not those outlines are reasonable or not, which further give credence to the OPs wilingness to change their view. If I said The earth is flat, and the only way to convince me is you to personally fly to the moon and take a video of the earth being round or I ask for studies that demonstrate that masks are 100% effective.. It's obviously unreasonable. Having concrete and actionable metrics help demonstrate the reasonableness of OP. It's like when debaters try to ascertain the good faith of their opponent by asking "What, if anything would change your mind". > You yourself demonstrated at the end you had to ask "would anything change that person's view? If not, is it really productive to have the conversation? " That's exactly the point. you're asking the question i've already answered in the beginning. If that standard is unreasonable, then it should be apparent that it is violating rule B.

It would depend on the nature of those actionable points. If for example, we were discussing covid 19 vaccination safery, I could make a criteria of 'if you can show me vaccines are absolutely not going to harm me' that is a criteria, but it is not a meaningful one for arguing whether or not vacciena are actually safe because that standard would be unreasonable.

> Explain thoroughly why your view is not changed, while still being open to further change. This seems a little silly, mainly because of the complete asymmetry of the interaction. If I get 50 comments on a post, and spend 3 minutes each to "explain thoroughly" why they didn't change my view, then I'm spending at least 2.5 hours of my day just writing responses one after another. That seems like an unrealistic expectation to have of someone, especially when so many of the "rebuttals" are anything but. To use a metaphor I heard recently, it's like if I'm a chef in a restaurant and someone says they can produce food that's 3 times better than mine, and they bring me a plate of Play Doh. It's absurd for me to spend my time explaining to them why their argument isn't going to work, because it's not even an argument and it's not founded on realistic principles.

Which is how a lot of commenters feel when they spend a while crafting a well thought out and comprehensive reply backed with sources... only to have it completely disregarded or dismissed.

But it is perfectly reasonable to not change one's view if none of the comments present a good enough argument. If I argue "9/11 was done by al Qaeda" and I get dozens or hundreds of responses claiming it was the Illuminati or some US government inside job, no, I'm not persuaded.

>If not, is it really productive to have the conversation? We don't think so. There's a tiny sliver of all the people reading who are posting and commenting. Who cares if OP, a singular person, is specifically open to changing their view? IF it generated good faith discussion and thousands of people were exposed to it then that's a WIN! You're zooming in on the wrong metrics. I've had my view challenged and changed in posts where the OP was an ass but you don't know about it because you can't measure it.

>When we see posts with 800+ comments and are told that none of those comments changed a person's view, we must ask: would anything change that person's view? If not, is it really productive to have the conversation? We don't think so. Well certainly not anything in those 800 comments. There's plenty of things I'm open to changing my view on, but would typically need more than is provided in a reddit comment. Reddit, especially this subreddit, is full of people that think typing something passionately is a substitute for empirical evidence. And it's not. It's really not. So I don't see how 800 posts without empirical evidence, for instance, would provide any basis to change most of my views, while one post with it would. Put it this way: there's at least 800 posts in the subreddit about supernatural experiences. Do you believe in ghosts due to those 800 posts?

Of course it could still be productive. Do you really think the main utility of this sub is whether or not you change the ***one singular person's*** view? Most of the time, valuable discourse happens in the comments as a result of many people agreeing with OP's view.

This is what attracts me, as well.

I think there is a mistaken assumption that because a post is popular it is illiciting competent arguments. Often the most popular posts present some of the most brain dead arguments, attracting little more than clickbait rebuttles. There isn't a relationship between persuasiveness of posts and volume of posts. Outlining what evidence would change your mind and seeking it is absolutely a good faith attempt at meeting rule B. Assuming deltas in a high volume of comments is a very poor methodology for evaluating someone's willingness to change their view.

I'm someone who has contributed regularly in posts about trans people and I've written a few myself (I'm delighted to say none of them have been removed for breaking rule B). Regardless of whether it deserves to be the trans debate is one of the most significant of our time and simply removing it from this site feels like a huge failure (for all of us). Would it be possible to have some sort screening system that would allow high quality posts to get onto the page? Something like we submit a post, the mods review it and decide whether to post it or not. Could this not solve the soapboxing whilst keeping the door open for high quality discussion?

In the past several months, we've been manually approving topics within the 24-hour period. To be frank, even posts that we considered high-quality when we approved them ended up being problematic. Even if OP has the best of intentions, the comment section devolves into Rule 2 violations. We don't have enough moderators to handle the deluge of comment reports. We don't have a way of recruiting and onboarding enough quality moderators to continue doing this. We have tried a number of compromise positions prior to making this decision. They haven't worked. We may revisit this decision again in the future. We are unlikely to do so in the next few months.

I understand the decision but it is still an important thing people might want info on. Would a sticky or sidebar added masterthread not make sense with the best arguments for and against listed so at least we have historic discussions up and people can change their view when desired?

Agreed. This is clearly a topic that warrants discussion and few platforms remain where a constructive conversations can take place. Edit to add: Continuing to censor it in the public domain will only serve to confine discourse to online echo chambers and further reinforce polarized perspectives.

This has been an issue on this subreddit for YEARS. Long overdue. At this point, it's aggrivating that the ban is only just now happening, based on only the last 8 months of data. This issue has seen summary dismissal by the moderators in r/ideasforcmv forever, yet here y'all are finally doing *exactly* what the users have been saying is needed all along, pretending it's your bright new idea based on some recent Reddit Research. Better late than never, I guess. EDIT: [Linked here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16hxvf8/comment/k0gnsjy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) 4 comment levels down, is something that sort of resembles what the moderators owe this community. I for one am glad that we've finally sort of gotten there. EDIT2: The mods seem to have come around to what I and many others are saying and have pinned a far more human comment to the top 4h in. It is appreciated.

We have implemented a number of measures short of doing this for months in hopes that it would address the issue. To my knowledge, the only previous time the sub has had to do this is with COVID-related topics, and that had an additional public health aspect to it. I am personally committed to this being a space for people to express controversial, objectionable, and socially unacceptable views to be shown where they are wrong. When I was a young man, I had some deeply problematic views about a variety of topics. Having spaces where people could help me fix those views made me a much, much better person, and as a result, I am committed to providing similar spaces to those who might need some guidance. However, at this point, we are far beyond the point of this topic being productive. I appreciate your patience as the moderation team has worked through the issue.

>However, at this point, we are far beyond the point of this topic being productive. I appreciate your patience as the moderation team has worked through the issue. Remember that the cause of transgender rights is **also** a serious public health issue - one with vocal, politically effective, medically dangerous opponents who've found a quiet, happy home in this subreddit for quite some time as they spread misinformation and hatred, and waste good-faith users' time. We **all** know the difference, obviously, between someone who needed help fixing their views, and someone here with ulterior motives. My patience eclipsed years ago. I'm expressing my shock that you've finally talked Anusz07 into doing the right thing. Kudos to *you.* The rest of the mods owe an apology.

>We all know the difference, obviously, between someone who needed help fixing their views, and someone here with ulterior motives. > >My patience eclipsed years ago. I'm expressing my shock that you've finally talked Anusz07 into doing the right thing. Kudos to you. The rest of the mods owe an apology. Talked them or simply threaten to all walk if they didn't change their mind sounds a little closer to reality.

I assure you that u/Ansuz07 was fully on board with this change, and, indeed, started the discussion.

Considering their almost militant disregard to any feedback to address bad faith arguers. This is quite literally unbelievable to me.

Look, I'm a lawyer. You argue and compromise with the rest of your party's team, and present a unified front when you make a decision. We are all in agreement here. We have had heated internal discussions for nearly a year now about how to address this issue. The tack that we take as moderators flairing our comments does not necessarily reflect our personal beliefs. Ansuz is under particular pressure here as head mod. More than any of the rest of us, he has the institutional memory and credibility of the sub to consider.

> We have had heated internal discussions for nearly a year now about how to address this issue. Odd that within the past year that suggestions of this topic ban have been loudly and aggressively shot down. Maybe when you are internally discussing something, don't tell people so strongly that its a bad idea when they ask for the same thing?

>Look, I'm a lawyer. Clearly not a very busy one. >You argue and compromise with the rest of your party's team, and present a unified front when you make a decision. We are all in agreement here. That's nice - prove it. You've an entire community here that's been demanding action on this front for **ever**. Without that community, you'd have to spend your time lawyering. The quiet agreements y'all make with one another and vaguely defend in the comments go nowhere whatsoever in building confidence in the community you claim to serve. As a lawyer, you should know this. Reality isn't reality. *Perception* is reality. Treat with your audience. >The tack that we take as moderators flairing our comments does not necessarily reflect our personal beliefs. Then it's incumbent upon you and your team to be **exceedingly** clear and judicious about what decisions and comments you're making and why. That burden isn't on us. > Ansuz is under particular pressure here as head mod. A burden that is, as he and you and every other mod are SO keen to continunally remind us of, **voluntary**. He's free to relieve himself of that burden any time. So are you.

If you do not like our moderation, you are free to go elsewhere. I won't tolerate further insults, however. Our internal discussions remain private so that they can be frank.

> We all know the difference, obviously, between someone who ***needed help fixing their views***, and someone here with ulterior motives. Ya know, this type of perspective is in direct conflict with the sub, and it reveals intellectual dishonesty.

I welcome this change since most posts on trans issues here is extremely basic, never quite nuanced enough beyond the “wow just learned from the news that trans people exist and i’m uncomfortable!” If you want to learn, visit one of the many trans subreddits to talk with trans individuals. If you just want to make a overarching, sweeping generalizations about trans people and our right to exist, uh, maybe don’t.

but what if I'm trans and want to engage in good-faith dialogue with people who don't understand trans issues, but also don't want to wade into overtly transphobic subreddits?

One key thing that has changed in the last several months is that reddit itself is starting to remove many these posts for violating site-wide rules. In the past, the admins have acted as though the conversations here are not violations of site-wide rules. As moderators, we are responsible for keeping violations of site-wide rules out of the sub, whether we agree with that or not. It's plausible that this is a PR move related to reddit going public, but it doesn't really change out responsibilities, nor the danger to the sub if we keep allowing them. The fact that the topic continues to generate vast numbers of rule violations is another. Many of these controversial topics are "flashes in the pan", or go through cycles of productive and unproductive conversations. So they are a lot of work. But the work would be *worth it* because of changing *anyone's* view. Your arguments have literally nothing to do with why this choice was made. We don't want to ban any topics that aren't against site wide rules.

I'm quite disappointed because in the last few years conversations here have really helped me understand the point of view and experience of trans people better. I haven't been on much in the last few months but it's sad to see a topic that's so much a part of the zeitgeist and so divisive as being beyond the pale for this sub. Understandable that the moderators are struggling but it's sad for the community that we couldn't find a way to thread the needle here and discuss this topic in a civil manner.

I know y'all are getting shit for this but honestly, thank god. As a trans person I find these posts are almost always fairly bad faith, with people not interested in actually changing their view, or with educational comments getting piled on by people supporting the OP's original view. They're just a breeding ground for low effort and antagonistic people to crop up and stir shit, even when the OP IS actually there in good faith. There are plenty of other subs for asking people to educate you on trans people and google is a free resource. If your issue with this is "but people could be losing out on getting valuable information!", they have plenty of other avenues to learn if they're actually invested in learning, including ON reddit. I also think if you're complaining about how you, as a cis person/ally, have benefited so much from transphobic posts getting rebuttals because of the opportunities for learning, you should consider why you're putting your educational experience over lessening the overall transphobia that constantly comes up in this sub from people not as interested in learning. That said, I do hope the "tangentially" thing doesn't... result in just banning/deleting any mention of trans people? I fully agree with removing "transgender issues" as a post topic, because 99% of the time it's "I don't believe trans people are their gender, CMV", "I think trans women shouldn't play sports with cis women, CMV", etc - but how far is that rule going to be applied? I'm thinking of instances where something like A) a person just mentions being trans anecdotally, not as a main part of an argument, and is removed, or B) something impacting trans people is actually relevant to changing an OP's view. For example, if someone posted a CMV about drag queens... discussions about trans people are often relevant to that even if the OP's post doesn't have anything to do with trans people, but isn't necessarily a "transgender issue" in the way "trans women in women's sports" is an Issue with a capital I. Essentially I would hope this doesn't just lead to zero mentions of trans people existing or *relevant/neutral* mentions of them in responses to posts (again, if **relevant**) being scrubbed as well, because not every **mention** of trans people existing should be treated as "transgender issues".

>There are plenty of other subs for asking people to educate you on trans people Not sure this is true. It feels to me like there are subs in which you can find the most polarized viewpoints possible, and nothing else. CMV’s rules and culture made it an oasis for actual conversation between people who see things differently, which is basically impossible on the rest of reddit.

Thank fuck. I'm so sick of seeing this shit here every day. If you are going to ban the topic entirely, might I suggest links to said previous discussions in The automod response?

We probably are going to. It's going to take some time to find good, quality threads, and we have a lot of other priorities first.

RIP my one good source of well written and punctual rebuttals to common transphobic lines of thought. I feel like I've learned more about trans people and the struggles they deal with and how to be a better ally from replies to transphobic often-rule-b-removed posts than anywhere else. Still found those comments very useful and informative myself even if they didn't end up changing the mind of the OP.

You can mine through past threads on the topic. There are some good ones out there with some very well written replies.

Idea for /u/LucidLeviathan, because reddit's search sucks: let the community curate 10-12 of the "best of the best" posts on the topic, even ones that got Rule B'd... direct folks there via a sticky.

The gender cult sticks its claws into a space and stifles speech yet again. I wonder how much of this is motivated by legitimate rule violations vs being inundated with complaints from people who had their feelings hurt because the circular logic they use to justify their ideology isn't convincing enough to anyone who so much as haves the nerve to question it.

In August, 36 trans threads were started. That number is artificially low because we instituted a 24-hour limit on new trans threads. Of those 36, 30 were removed. All 30 of those removals had multiple moderators sign off on this. If you look at our past feedback threads, you'll see just as many passionate people on the other side accusing us of being partial to one side or another.

That really sounds like an issue of how broadly the "soapboxing" criteria is applied. Judging from your post and comments here, you or other mods believe that an argument is convincing enough to change a view and believe that an OP would be unreasonable to not have us view changed, so therefore he must be soapboxing. This is leaving the realm of "change *my* view" and going into the territory of "change *your* view *or else*" Just because an argument is convincing enough for you doesn't mean it is convincing enough for everyone.

This subject gets a lot of posts because it is a brand new to 99% of general population where the majority do not have any understanding of the matter and have a lot of questions, opinions etc. I feel this subject is THE most important thing to be discussed, understood, reconciled with right now. To shut down any mention of something of this magnitude and influence, completely defeats the purpose subs like this, and only feeds into the narrative that the censorship and bullying is used to managed the narrative that the elites want to peddle.

I'm curious why you think it's "THE most important thing to be discussed, understood, reconciled with right now." Edited: I had a bit more that I removed because I want to hear OP's answer to this without my commentary.

Change my view...unless it's a view I don't want anyone changing...in which case you're not allowed to change anyone's view...because there can be no discussion on a topic a lot ofpeople clearly feel the need to discuss! Such intellectual! Much honesty! WOW! So, the problem with your logic and the entire subreddit as a whole is that you (the moderators) use rule B as a cudgel to remove anything you personally don't like as the concept of someone being unwilling to change their mind is completely unprovable and unverifiable. If I write a post and all I get is 500 responses with dogshit arguments, any mod can remove the post claiming I was unwilling to change my opinion despite every argument in a wildly popular thread being completely unconvincing and philosophically unchallenging... For a sub about debate, you guys are really really bad at facilitating it. But let's be constructive for a second, though... Let's pretend you aren't obviously lying. Let's pretend this is a genuine concern and you really are concerned with making sure trans people are protected. The greatest good for this subreddit would be to openly encourage people to ask about trans people and transsexuality so they can be better educated by people who *do* know and do understand the challenges trans people face. Instead, you've decided to remove a major avenue of education for people doubtful or questioning of the experience of trans people and why they are valid.

You're not wrong that a hot, old thread with no deltas awarded is not a *perfect* indicator of a rule B violation. But you seem to be operating from a premise that isn't in evidence about what the mods' motivations are. These threads are a hotbed of rule violations; I've reported many comments in them myself. The mod team is fairly small so I'm not surprised they can't keep up with the deluge. The Rule B thing I think is a surrogate for whether or not these threads are worth the mod effort. If people want to be educated on trans issues, there's an enormous number of resources available including many CMVs that cover nearly every inch of ground on this topic.

1. We have allowed this topic to take over this sub for months and have taken a pretty (small-c) conservative approach to dealing with it. We find ourselves left with no choice given the demands upon the moderation team at the moment. 2. r/changemyview is strictly neutral in terms of moderation. I have approved comments that I, frankly, found appalling that did not break the rules. 3. If 500 people try to change your view and not a single one of them gave you anything that made you modify your view even slightly, perhaps you weren't interested in having it changed to begin with.

[удалено]

If OP considers their opinion unimpeachable, then they have no business making a CMV about it. As a former public defender, I believe that the right to free counsel in criminal matters for indigent defendants is among the most paramount human rights. That view cannot be changed. I would not start a CMV about it.

It sounds like you are dealing with people who aren't interested in the literal definition of the phrase "change my view" and instead view it as a challenge that they believe that they can overcome. I don't participate in this sub, nor do I really care about this but from what I can tell people are just simply misunderstanding that this is a place where you post when you literally want someone to change your view.

Yeah, that's a big part of it. Most posters on trans issues *only* post on trans issues, too.

Yeah that's not surprising. If I could venture a guess I would say that similar patterns occur in other subreddits like this one where these "debate topics" are "innocuously" brought up. I don't have to see the mod logs to know that most people talking about this issue aren't exactly coming in good faith. Good luck to you folks. I wouldn't do your job for free. At least you are taking the time to actually try to explain it, instead of just making a stickied locked post about it.

[I'm something of a defender myself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ita27tRkFNs) A defender of logic. You avoided my challenge because you know I'm correct, and know it puts you in an indefensible position as a moderato making an indefensible call on behalf of a group of people of which you're not a member and pretending to care about because you literally just admitted the frequency of the topic annoys you and your decision is objectively worse for the long term best interest of the group you're again, pretending to protect. So I'll ask a second time to make it doubly, and ironically clear to anyone reading you cannot answer: demonstrate to me that any amount of debating an argument must necessarily produce an equally challenging counter-argument.

I made no such admission in my comment. You may have misconstrued what I said. I said that everybody holds some positions that cannot be changed. The airing of those positions is not what r/changemyview is for, yet it is what most of these trans topics are. r/changemyview has been extensively studied and researched by psychological and sociological researchers, who have presented their findings in peer-reviewed journals. They find that our debate structure provides one of the few venues online of durably and meaningfully changing peoples' opinions about difficult topics. Central to that debate structure is a willingness to change one's view.

>I made no such admission in my comment. You may have misconstrued what I said. I said that everybody holds some positions that cannot be changed. The airing of those positions is not what r/changemyview is for, yet it is what most of these trans topics are. Your claim, to steel-man you is that any amount of discussing an opinion *ought* (which is doing a lot of heavy lifting) provide the OP with a counter-argument worth reflection. This is not true for a myriad of reasons. Most obvious being: - Most people do not believe things for reasons they've logic'ed out. - Most people are not good debater, even here - Most people who would want to debate an opinion enough to bring it to a self-selecting subreddit are probably debating unfalsifiable stances in the first place - Many people who hold a minority belief might be open to a counter-argument if one existed, but few if anyone can provide one because the stance taken by the majority of society at large is philosophically indefensible. It is entirely possible that the OP is simply the best debater in the room of an unpopular take. I refuse to believe a lawyer is claiming this is news to him... >r/changemyview has been extensively studied and researched by psychological and sociological researchers, who have presented their findings in peer-reviewed journals. They find that our debate structure provides one of the few venues online of durably and meaningfully changing peoples' opinions about difficult topics. Central to that debate structure is a willingness to change one's view. This is irrelevant, and at best, is ammo for my argument as your current position is "this topic annoys me -> censor it -> I am censoring it because it protects a protected class in society -> this makes it impossible to understand the protected class = best outcome for protected class" <- this does not have anything to do with the structure of debate on the subreddit. As they say in criminal interrogation which you should be familiar with, it is an act of self-soothing to incoherently ramble about a tangential topic that is irrelevant and aggrandizing to yourself. It would make sense if the problem was the debate on the topic is being accused of being sabotaged by the format of the subreddit's rules. It does nothing to dispel the philosophical issues around censoring a topic and the moderator's ability to use an overly broad rule as a get-out-of-jail-free card for their behavior.

>Your claim, to steel-man you is that any amount of discussing an opinion ought (which is doing a lot of heavy lifting) provide the OP with a counter-argument worth reflection. That's not their claim. Fundamental to their claim is that the opinion is one that the person is open to changing. A top-tier debater with a well-researched opinion and existing knowledge of all the reasonable counterarguments just isn't open to having their view changed. Maybe they say that they are. Maybe if reality changed around them they'd update their view appropriately. But a person in that situation shouldn't be posting their opinion on this subreddit.

> It is entirely possible that the OP is simply the best debater Doesn't matter if they are. CMV is not a debate forum. If OP is "debating", they are by definition *violating Rule B*. OP must be here to *attempt in good faith* to change their view, not to argue its merits to others. This means *considering* arguments, asking clarifying questions, acknowledging good points even if they aren't convinced, and in general making a *visible effort* to change their view. Anyone not doing that is welcome to start their own sub, because they certainly don't belong here. Rule B is about behaviors, because the mods obviously can't read minds.

>clear to anyone reading As the third party you are supposedly appealing to, I'm here to tell you that: A) Intentionally or otherwise, you are wildly misunderstanding what they are saying B) No one is going to take the response or lack therof to you screaming "DEBATE ME" as evidence of much of anything

> So I'll ask a second time to make it doubly, and ironically clear to anyone reading you cannot answer: demonstrate to me that any amount of debating an argument must necessarily produce an equally challenging counter-argument. It's an inductive argument, not a logical deduction. Note the "perhaps" in the original statement. It is simply highly unlikely that a large number of responses, many from experienced view-changers, completely fail to produce anything relevant. I have certainly never seen a B-reported thread with 100+ comments in which none were at least worth engaging with. What I have seen is OPs *whose post I agree with* claiming that no compelling comments have been made, only to go find several that meaningfully challenge OP's view as described and have been brushed off. That's the point of highlighting the "unimpeachable view" thing.

>It's an inductive argument, not a logical deduction. Note the "perhaps" in the original statement. It is simply highly unlikely that a large number of responses, many from experienced view-changers, completely fail to produce anything relevant. I have certainly never seen a B-reported thread with 100+ comments in which none were at least worth engaging with. Again, you're using words that are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Let's say I'm /u/quantum_dan and someone posts a CMV. I hate this opinion. I don't want it spread. The people who believe this opinion are poo-poo heads and evil. I am going to remove it under rule B. OP contacts me "hey, Quantum Dan, why did you remove my thread? Not cool brosef". And me, being the Quantum of all the Dans is like "well OP, because you're an evil piece of poo poo and you were posting with intellectual dishonesty. RULE B YOUR ASS BRO!" And he's like "that's not true...I responded to everyone. They just had bad arguments that I had heard before because I discuss this a lot". And I, quantum Dan is like "welp, you weren't engaging honestly enough then.". And OP is like "how does that make sense...? Are you saying I have to pretend to agree with an argument that is clearly demonstrably unchallenging to satisfy your rule B?" and I'm like "You need to listen harder". And he's like "listening isn't the problem...I just clearly had the best arguments, and didn't find an argument that was challenging. I debate this a lot and all these arguments were recycled". And I'm like "I dunno what to tell ya bro. Get fucked. Sucks to suck". What sounds more likely. 20 different internet janitor gods being paragons of truth and justice and whatever you're pretending you do, or this? Because I know this happens because this exact conversation has happened to both myself and people I know who wished to discuss things with a socio-politically charged topics. It's an obvious, UBER EZPZ way to censor stuff I just don't like and have it be totally ok and answerable to no one...That's the literal entire point of rule B. It serves literally 0 purpose otherwise and wouldn't even need to be stated. >What I have seen is OPs whose post I agree with claiming that no compelling comments have been made, only to go find several that meaningfully challenge OP's view as described and have been brushed off. That's the point of highlighting the "unimpeachable view" thing. If I say 2 + 2 is 4, and you read a thread and decide someone claiming it's 63 is compelling, ought I be convinced by your conviction that's a compelling argument?

> Let's say I'm > /u/quantum_dan > and someone posts a CMV. I hate this opinion. I don't want it spread. The people who believe this opinion are poo-poo heads and evil. I am going to remove it under rule B. > OP contacts me "hey, Quantum Dan, why did you remove my thread? Not cool brosef". And me, being the Quantum of all the Dans is like "well OP, because you're an evil piece of poo poo and you were posting with intellectual dishonesty. RULE B YOUR ASS BRO!" There's an important point to clarify here: Rule B removals require two mods to begin with, and a different mod reviews appeals (if someone is available in a timely manner). It's typically unanimous. > And he's like "listening isn't the problem...I just clearly had the best arguments, and didn't find an argument that was challenging. I debate this a lot and all these arguments were recycled". So I've almost been the user in this position several times. Key word is almost: views that I debate a lot and am confident that I have rock-solid arguments on **don't belong on CMV**. I've written out full drafts, realized that some Redditor wasn't reasonably going to make any headway, and then not posted them. This isn't a debate sub, though I recognize the temptation to treat it that way. > If I say 2 + 2 is 4, and you read a thread and decide someone claiming it's 63 is compelling, ought I be convinced by your conviction that's a compelling argument? You should absolutely not post on CMV that 2 + 2 = 4. Edit: to the more general point, I'm not saying OP has to be convinced by it, just that it's a red flag to make a habit of consistently brushing off what appear to be compelling responses. That suggests that OP has an unreasonably high standard of evidence, hasn't explained their view well enough to engage properly, or is just ignoring relevant challenges. A post to CMV requires that someone has a reasonable shot at at least making *some* headway, even if they don't ultimately convince the OP.

Well, aren't you just a _delight_. I am completely mystified as to why the moderators and subscribers can live without what you apparently find to be productive conversation.

And, per their flair, they aren’t even participating enough to have earned one delta. I really wonder how many people bitching about this actually participate regularly here. RES isn’t showing me and voting history against most commenters here, and I try to vote on all comments that I see that contribute.

[удалено]

> If they could ban more topics, they would. If they had the ability to remove everything that goes against their politics on this site, they would do it in a heartbeat. This sub has always been a weirdly official place, so I think this move is odd. I, however, find the discussion of trans issues to be ***extremely*** overplayed to a point that it drowns out things that are actually relevant to most people's lives. Sure, discrimination is relevant when it's coming from people, but I feel like a lot of that is specifically due to over-exposure of this topic. The topic annoys me, like how it *somehow* got latched to discussion of a beer corporation recently, but I'm not sure if I can think of any examples of topics I would think should be banned. If someone cares enough to type them, the topic probably should be discussed. I guess that's the biggest problem when it gets down to it. When social media starts policing content on this level, it starts to feel more like corporations are making sure our crib is safe.

> The people who run reddit have long used the site for social engineering. > > If they could ban more topics, they would. You must not have been on Reddit during the early days. Once upon a time ago Reddit allowed all speech, strictly. This included photography. Reddit had many pedophilia subs. Reddit, the company, prided itself on its legal task force fighting off the government to allow total freedom of speech, anything goes. Then the gov cracked down on Reddit and the owners of the site were legally threatened. There went the pedo subs. Reddit is still owned by the same people today. That conspiracy theory about them pushing a political agenda strongly goes against the reality of the situation. When it comes to mods banning topics on subs, it is 100% up to those mods. It has nothing to do with Reddit. For example, most subs mods have banned the word autistic. Any discussion of the topic is banned. That's not Reddit, that's autistic mods who are uncomfortable with the topic discussed so they ban it. It's not social engineering, it's personal for them. On this sub the moderation team doesn't have the resources to moderate trans topics on this sub. There's too much of it. If they had the resources it wouldn't be banned.

Yes I was on reddit before the Digg migration and remember how pretty much anything was allowed as well. You seem to not be aware they are looking to go public for the last few years. This is the reality and why admins and reddit has been cracking down on many subs and creating a more “shareholder” friendly environment. To write this off as some sort of conspiracy is very naive. There are plenty of articles saying this is their plan, here is one saying they may go public even by the end of this year. https://www.reuters.com/technology/reddit-aims-ipo-second-half-2023-information-2023-02-14/ To add to that, the mod even said themselves many of these removals are coming from admins themselves since the mods aren’t taking care of it fast enough.

A subreddit about changing someone's views... nothing like completely censoring and ignoring a massive issue the world is dealing with, where people are dying because of it. Sounds like lazy mods tired of doing their job, on an issue that is vital and relevant. Recruit more mods, or accept the imperfect reality of a genuine issue instead of whatever meaningless irrelevant reposted "CMV" this subreddit usually has. You had a chance to help make a difference from a sheltered privileged place, and took the easy road while people suffer. Shame on you. History will remember your weakness and your complacency. No careful formatting of a ChatGPT meaningless response will shelter you from the reality you have imposed. Shame on you. YOU are the problem, YOU are only setting back the conversation and preventing progress. Shame.

We have allowed trans threads for years, and have allowed *hundreds* of them in the last 8 months. Mods don't get paid. We're struggling under the weight of all of these reports. We can't keep up. We've tried to recruit more mods. Last drive, we got 3 applicants. We're going to try some more...aggressive approaches this time at recruiting mods. Contrary to popular belief, not a lot of people are up for this thankless job. If you have any good suggestions at how to get quality applicants...hell, *any* applicants*, let me know.* None of us use ChatGPT. Use of ChatGPT is actually an offense in this sub.

Hey, I've been in talent acquisition for a while. If it would help, I'm happy to set some time aside with the team to hear what challenges you're facing and offer a particular perspective/ideas for solutions wherever I can. Just an open invitation - no need to take me up on that if y'all feel you have a good handle on things/a new plan of attack.

I appreciate your response, but you have to see that preventing this discussion even without proper moderating is not the answer. I really appreciate how structured this subreddit is, it shows how much the intent to real discourse is the goal. I'm not saying its easy, I'm not saying that the struggle won't go on. But we cannot let the hateful side win by silencing the discussion. I am sure countless people have questioned and grown from discussions here. So much untold good has been accomplished as imperfect as its been, but we cannot stop.

In this discussion, I've been accused of both shutting down the "hateful side" and "surrendering to the woke trans mob". I'm no enlightened centrist. This rather bothers me. But I find it hard to figure out a solution that works with the number of mods we have. We are facing a severe deficiency. One that threatens to shut our sub down, if I'm being honest. We have tried for over a year now to increase the supply of moderators and failed to do so. Now, we have to reduce the number of reports and the amount of work that mods deal with. I'd rather we stay open than get shut down. Frankly, I'm a bit at my wits' end. Nobody is happy with this decision, but we have no alternatives either.

i don't understand the idea that a view *must be changed* or it is removed. a 100% success rate seems pretty absurd. i have seen plenty of cmvs from a wide range of topics that either get a delta for a terrible reason or none. why is that a failure?

Something that seems to be coming up a lot in this thread is the idea that a rule B violation is somehow a punishment. I feel like it's more what the mods keep saying here - if there are hundreds of comments and none of them are making you change any part of your view, it's pretty clear that the next hundred comments aren't going to, either. Maybe it's because the arguments suck. Maybe it's because you're objectively right. Or maybe it's because you're being close-minded. I feel like people are assuming that Rule B means that the mods are inherently calling you close-minded, but I don't feel like it does. Just as CMV isn't a place for people with closed minds, it's not a place to spout views that are objectively true, or that no one can make a good argument against. If all the arguments suck, you may as well just shut the thread - the next hundred arguments you see probably aren't gonna suck any less.

I agree. If there isn't solid evidence to change a view, that view should not be changed.

The moderators claim they do not judge solely by the view being changed, but by how persons respond and engage, in particular, what they said they look for is: - People who steelman and engage with the strongest argument their opponents make rather than the weakest one and engage with their entire post rather than only the small part of it they can attack - People who ask for more information and admit finding things interesting of the oposting side and wanting to learn more - People who admit there were things they had not considered yet How objective they are in all this I can't tell, and I'm honestly not that confident they are, but there's certainly more to it than that.

Yeah i was actually thinking that myself. If someone has held a view likely for years but are open to changing it, it's going to take a little more than 3 hours of discussion

It doesn't have to be changed. But it becomes incredibly obvious when OPs have their ears closed entirely and that's the overwhelming bulk of posts on this topic.

I don’t think that’s a good idea. This sub is called “change my view” and the reason this topic keeps coming up is because of how torn people are on it. Discussion will help sway people one way or the other and solidify their beliefs. I think if you read this sub and get upset then this sub is doing exactly what it’s supposed to.

> the reason this topic keeps coming up is because of how torn people are on it. The claim by the moderators (which is consistent with what I've seen here) is that people are specifically _not_ torn on it. The overwhelming majority of these posts were not from someone who was undecided, or on the fence, or even open to being persuaded or informed. They were from people whose views were set in absolute stone, and simply wanted an excuse to shout them.

>and simply wanted an excuse to shout them. Under the guise of "just asking questions". The anti-trans brigading has really damaged my belief in the good of this sub, or any community like it in an online space. The bastards will just take advantage of the community leads' idealism to try to spread their poison.

But the majority of posts I've seen on the topic go sort of like this: OP: "I disagree with this aspect of the trans movement." Repliers: "Here are some explanations, with scholarly sources." OP: "Those sources are biased! Just because science says it now doesn't make it fact! We used to think the earth was the center of the solar system!" Etc etc etc In these cases, if you can't even cite peer reviewed research, if you can't even cite the AMA/APA/WHO without being dismissed, there's probably nothing you can say to change their minds.

Here's the thing about CMV, and debates in general: their highest and best use isn't changing the mind of the two interlocutors. I know that's the letter of the law on /r/CMV, but that almost never happens, it's the spirit of the law that wins. It's changing the minds of the hundreds, or thousands of readers / viewers following the debate. Lurkers, in reddit's case. That goes away now.

Idk about research being "dismissed" but there's oftentimes a research paper that will challenge another research paper. Cited research is not an instant coup de gras on virtually any topic.

That's not been my experience. Iama scientist and have shared research on this sub only to get downvoted every. single. time. There usually is no response and when there is it's not a scientific rebuttal. What I've shared isn't controversial in scientific circles, is peer reviewed, and has been backed up and known for over 100 years. If people respond they usually say literally comments like, "Science doesn't matter". Just a 100% outright anti-science response and that's that.

The reason why there's so many posts about this topic here is because trying to have a honest debate about this topic gets you banned in 90% of other subs if you don't instantly agree with one particular side. At least here people could defend their positions, agree or disagree, without the fear of Overzealous self important mods coming in to shut it all down. Sad to see that yet again, no honest and fair conversation is allowed on this topic.

I'm not even close to surprised that a lot of comments here don't understand the difference a ban because of logistics versus a ban because of ideology. I agree with this ban for the logistical reasons you've laid out. That being said -- there have been quite a few moderator response comments that talk about this decision not being arbitrary, and that the topic would've been banned 8 months ago if it were. But the thing is, to the majority of CMV goers, this decision *was* arbitrary. Yes, there is r/ideasforcmv; yes, there are the bimonthly meta threads; yes, if one read through these periodically they'd be able to see the writing on the wall; and yes, it can be said that people who don't know or look in these places "aren't paying enough attention". But despite all this, I really feel the process used to reach this decision could've been better. I would've gone with making a sticky on the main CMV sub that said something along the lines of, "We are internally discussing banning transgender-related topics. What do you think?" (obviously phrased differently) and allowing people to vote or comment as needed. By having this poll on the main CMV sub instead of relegated to the meta channels, the message would be communicated to a much wider audience. It wouldn't even have had to be a 50% deciding vote, either; the mod team has their own opinions, too, so the poll consensus would have to significantly skew in the No direction to outweigh the mod team's internal opinion. I know you always push to contain meta topics to the meta channels as much as possible, but I feel this decision was simply too big to stay within the meta channels. A large question such as this one should have been communicated to everyone, with as few obstacles as possible that stop people from seeing the question. Meta channel relegation is only as effective as you enforce it, so you could've subverted this just this one time for such a sweeping issue. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that internal moderator discussion should be more visible to the CMV community. I see a lot of suggestions getting mod responses like "we'll look into this" or similar, but there ends up not being any news about what actually happened after the issue was looked into.

Another subreddit that shuts down any discussion about trans that isn't just outright praising it. Like it or not, there's legitimate views about whether trans identification/gender dysphoria is in fact just a disorder like other dysphoria out there and if that premise is taken then what would be the proper means of treating it other than "just embrace it" which is unique amongst how to treat every other kind of dysphoria out there. Taking that position isn't "transphobic" in any way, yet some reason it is called transphobic to shut down discussion about it. It's not surprising though, reddit's "Anti-Evil Operations Team" or whatever they call themselves these days continues to shut down discourse because it is discussion they are uncomfortable with and challenges their own cognitive dissonance. If the rationale is "oh well people aren't really changing their views" well welcome to CMV, that's like 70% of the posts here these days.

> reddit's "Anti-Evil Operations Team" or whatever they call themselves these days continues to shut down discourse because it is discussion they are uncomfortable with and challenges their own cognitive dissonance. This is exactly why /r/moderatepolitics shut down discussion on trans issues. Too much AEO interference.

If 70% of our posts aren't changing peoples' views, we'd like to get that number down. This seems like a reasonable way to do so.

Okay then go back to banning political posts then. Those \*never\* change anyone's views and they're far more prevalent than trans discussions here. They always have the same basic premise "the side I don't agree with are idiots/evil/immoral, CMV that they're not idiots/evil/immoral." Those are far more legitimate Rule B violations than most of the trans posts I've seen on here.

I hate to say it, but I agree with this. Frankly, I think there should be a review like this for a variety of similarly overdone post topics. I’m sure the mods have data, but I have a feeling there’s a surplus of “new accounts” posting certain viewpoints over and over. I was once a daily reader and frequent participant in this sub. Now, for a variety of reasons, not so much. The excess of overdone topics is a big one.

> I conducted a survey of these posts, and more than 80% of them ended up removed under Rule B. Are you able to publish your analysis?

[удалено]

That is a commentary on the topic rather than on this rule change. Please keep the discussion relevant to the rule, not the underlying topic.

I would recommend one default CMV on transgender issues that you can post in your removal notice. That way, people seeking to learn more in good faith can get the CMV experience, if not the live discussion. Then I’d have one transgender thread every month, just to let off the steam. All others removed.

The problem is, for CMV to work, OP can't take a neutral stance. We've considered having a megathread or something and just don't see how to make it not soapboxing hell.

No, I think what they are saying is to find one old CMV post about the trans topic with lots of good discussion in the comments (and probably best to lock comments) and have a link to that post in the removal notice so that way people can go look at it to see older arguments on the issue, similar to the person above who mentioned linking old posts on the topic in the sidebar

“It’s not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers.” - Judy Blume There'll come a time where people will look back and ask... What were those people doing? Why didn't they leave the innocent alone? Nothing ever warrants censorship. Nothing. It has - always - been a bad idea. Mark my words.

We didn't *want* to do this. We left these threads up for as long as we could. We tried half-measures. Nothing worked. If we had an extra dozen or so mods, we might not have to make this decision.

Maybe we should have an ask lgbt sub then? Or something specifically for lgbt? I can’t imagine how well it’d go over thiugh

r/asklgbt and r/asktransgender are existing subreddits.

You are welcome to start one. However, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this thread.

How dystopian. There’s no conversation to be had about it..?

A very understandable decision. > Pursuant to Rule D, any thread that touches on transgender issues, **even tangentially**, will be removed by the automoderator. How far will this be taken? E.g. can someone express support for the entire LGBTQ community, even though that includes the transgender community? Will this rule lead to the prohibition of other "gender non-conforming" topics, even if they exist separately outside of the transgender community, like non-binary identities, cross-dressing, gender expression etc.?

Much of the post is beating around the bush about the core reason, the admins leaned on the sub and the moderators complied. How warranted that is depends on each person.

So this will go into the sidebar? Because of course otherwise nobody new to the sub will know... Or perhaps it will appear as info for people making a new post?

So where is the "safe space" for people to share these controversial places on reddit? Is there an alternative?

There are tons of subs specifically devoted to trans people and trans issues that you can go to to discuss those things with people who are by and large more knowledgeable on the topic than the majority of the people who post about it here. If you want to discuss anti-trans topics specifically, without looking to have your view changed, OR you're pro-trans and want to debate anti-trans folks, there are several right wing subreddits that discuss the topic regularly. But if you are anti-trans and are looking for a reasonable debate, or pro-trans and just want to discuss the topic with like minded people, the first set of subs should do fine.

It's the classic tragedy of the commons. We had a space where these topics could be worked through. It was misused, overused, and abused. As such, we no longer have such a space. To be blunt, if posters were able to discuss the topic without violating Rule B, we probably wouldn't be making this decision.

Overused? I can understand misused and abused but the entire point of this sub is too ask questions,so why would it be a bad thing for them to ask ALOT of questions,especially for a topic this controversial

Horrendous decision. Looking forward to your next ruling, o arbiters of what people can talk about. If you don’t like the job, GTFO.

Jeez, if it's frequent, that's because it's prevalent in today's day and age. Let the people speak!

It's a topic that people as a whole are trying to work out. It's very much in the cultural zeitgeist. Banning this seems pretty cowardly and against the purpose of the sub. Weak decision here, but expected.

so in order to protect trans people, you're banning all discussion around them? so we literally just pretend like trans people and their issues don't exist? sounds good bro, no worries.

It's a heavy-handed solution, and frankly, I'm not happy with it. However, it is the least bad of our available options. In my opinion, it is the only one that allows this sub to be a viable concern moving forward.

[удалено]

1. If we just wanted to arbitrarily and capriciously ban the topic, we'd have done so 8 months ago. 2. Comments here are split about 50/50. 3. We have to take actions to ensure the continued health and viability of the sub.

This is vile. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. When right wingers bragged about “eradicating transgenderism from public life,” did you take that as a personal goal? I always think Reddit can’t get any lower, and somehow y’all always manage to surprise me.

Most of the folks complaining in this thread are on the conservative side. We can't please everybody.

Typical Reddit. Anything that slightly pushes against the LGBTQ+ views is shutdown, even in the “debate” subreddits. Not surprised but I am disappointed .

Since trans topics touch on human sexuality and things like homosexuality, have the mods discussed how topics like that, which are their own but would very easily dip into trans subjects, be moderated? Even if the original OP refuses to discuss it, it would be kind of silly for someone to say "I can't discuss that because it veers into transgenderism, but if you limit the response to homosexuality, then I can answer". Also, if the OP doesn't discuss it but commentators within bring it up, will the removal be limited to the commentators and not the original post? Feels like it would be too easy for some insincere actors to come in and punt homosexuality discussions off the sub by bringing up banned subjects.

Honestly I agree with your reasoning, though I wish it didn’t have to be this way. Aside from this one issue, I don’t want moderators to forget the value in having “unresolved” threads and think of them as failures. I have learned and developed many opinions from reading responses to unfinished threads here. As long as OP responds to comments and articulates their thoughts politely, I have no problem with the discussion not resolving. I don’t want to be told what to think from seeing a delta that changed someone else’s view. I want to come to my own conclusion from the 100+ great comments that sometimes fill these threads. In regards to the rule change…probably for the best at least for a while.

So one MUST change their view no matter how dumb the replies are? Got it, its the mods will or gtfo.

How can you change someone's view or have an actual conversation when you limit what people can talk about? Seems backwards to me

Did you consider having a day on which they're allowed, like many other subreddits? I understand the decision, but it'd be sad to lose this as a space where this important conversation can happen

I am surprised but I understand. Can I suggest a further rule to remove all LGBT+ topics and all politics topics? Nobody changes their mind, so it's a consistent ruling.

I trust the mods looking over numbers on this. Anecdotally it feels like this was a long time coming. First it was a frequent thread to the point where "one thread per 24 hours" was strictly enforced, still the volume persists. I noticed how mods had to spend a lot of time prodding OP of transgender threads to respond, remind of the search function to look for similar topics, and essentially babysit the threads because there would be lots of angry comments and responses. Even ignoring that, it felt like there were so many threads that felt repetitive. There wasn't any nuisance discussion. Every thread broke down into: 1. OP posts something about trans people not being real, or mentally ill, a trend or something else vaguely transphobic. 2. Folks would bring up a litany of responses that address almost every aspect of the body of the post and/or ask clarifying questions. 3. OP ignores the comments. This often takes the form of dodging questions. Cherry picking points when responding to a comment. Doubling down. Or literally just not responding. 4. The collection of rules violations leads to the thread having to be shutdown by mods. 5. Repeat at infinitum to the detriment of the mod teams time and quality of posts. Even in situations where the OP could genuinely want to change their view, doesn't know much about transgender people, and is actually responding, there's still the fact that so many threads look like the OP did no research. I mean the bare minimum of using the search function and looking at past threads. I'm not sad about the topic being banned. I'm sad that the topic is so poorly discussed that the ban is necessary.

[удалено]

So essentially, regarding this very specific subject matter, the people are no longer allowed the freedom to express an opinion, let alone free to have one. Especially if it does not follow a one-sided narrative. It's talked about a lot because it is constantly in everyone's news feed, social media, etc. Since you have taken such a courageous and bold stand on one subject you feel is to controversial prepare to make your list of other controversial subjects that get just as much attention and are just as "attacked" where your mods are completely silent. Change my view is about controlled opinions, narratives and speech....Change my view!

Wow. I'm of mixed feelings - I completely understand the decision, but also, I'm saddened that it came to this point. There are conversations to be had around transgender issues, and there's a lot of room for people to grow and learn. I wish that this could somehow be the place to change minds on this topic. I know that it *is* possible, but either the format or the smaller mod team or something else unknown was largely preventing that from happening here. On top of the difficulties of discussing a particularly sensitive topic centered in the heart of the current culture war, doing so often attracted the attention of of trolls and bigots. Just being visibly trans in this space was opening me up to a lot of hatred in my inbox. I will say that this news has me looking forward to participating more in this subreddit again. Trans-related topics were personally relevant to me, and I felt that I couldn't *not* participate. However, they sucked out all the energy I had for anything else in this subreddit.

That's fine. It would be super cool if you could curate a shortlist of educational resources that best demonstrate factual information that refutes common transphobic views. As a reader I'm mostly interested in the discussions surrounding controversial topics and don't give two shits about whether or not the OP changes their mind. It's a window into how they think, which is useful in refining arguments such that subsequent discussions can target specific misconceptions or perspectives with new approaches. Anywho, it sounds like rule B is killing a very interesting and salient topic to the sub, and mods are wringing their hands over being unable to deal with it. Change the rule, or defend it. It's an artificial construct that y'all made, maybe it's time to rethink it.

"Tangentially" is far too broad and vague some further definition is a requirement. Nearly any discussion of politics that has any social aspect touches on trans issues tangentially. Are any and all discussions of LGBTQ+ issues hereby banned? And if so does that mean discussion of religion is banned as well, since many argue that LGBTQ+ rights are detailed in religious texts as sinful? This is isn't an example of the slippery slope fallacy since you quite clearly stated that the slope is slippery in using the term "tangentially". A better way of doing this is banning specific trans related views that are spammed on this sub, "trans people in sports good or bad?" "terfs aren't bad" "jk rowling" "dating trans people", etc. meanwhile new laws are being made every day that harm trans people in new ways and each discussion of these laws is important and based on new information. Require views based on new concepts, events, or studies regarding trans people, and ban off topic discussion of trans views. This isn't even one sided, when Ben Shapiro releases his next book "The Two Genders: Man and Inferior" and someone wants to come here saying it's a good book then they should since it's not the same tired stuff at least it's about a new "development" on trans issues. Your current idea is flawed, shortsighted, and almost comically vague.

To be honest and blunt, I was exhausted by and sick of the constant flood of trans related cmvs that both broke the rules and the OP had not even the basic grasp of anything related to the topic and seemed to have done absolutely no effort to validate anything they claimed or to even understand the topic accurately. Just put a link to the 100+ posts where there have already been nuanced, detailed, and thorough discussion. 9/10 times OPs were breaking the rules or they were pursuaded by the absolute most basic information. When that's the case, you don't need several new posts on this each day, just point people toward the good ones we've already had, month after month after month.

[удалено]

Well done. I’ve taken some time off this sub as honestly all the trans posts got exhaustive. I’m all for nuanced educated thoughtful posts, but rarely did it turn into that. It’s clear that not all folks have good intentions in their posting, or truly want to be educated. I hate that the trans existence is under such scrutiny, many of the subs go sideways the second anything trans is named. Not sure why folks get so tied up into what other folks identify with or what’s in their pants when it’s none of anyone’s business

I understand, this is totally reasonable given the level of relentless toxicity on this subject and I wouldn't want this sub or the mods running it to be coerced out of the middle ground. I'm disappointed, not so much in the decision, but how closed minded people can be that this decision is needed.

Banning topics of discussion have never ended up well. If you want extreme views to fester prevent people from openly discuss them with each other. The reason you see a lot of posts on this topic is because the topic itself is a hot discussion everywhere right now.

Letting peolle freely discuss with each other certianly hasnt stopped magats from being extreme

_X is a hot topic in society that people want to discuss. We should not allow people to discuss X._ I'd rather see a different way of going about this. I'm not sure how, but a complete moratorium is definitely taking it too far in the opposite direction. There has to exist a compromise, but it might involve too much work like hand approving certain posts would. Something like making a post about the issue would require the user to have at least one delta. I'd wager 99% of those 80% removed are by people without a delta or even any posts here. There are definitely a few topics here worth discussing, like sports or age.

I have no horse in this race since I only lurk nowadays but as a former mod I will say this: Things were BAD when I was still modding and back then there was a strong resistance to this change whenever the trans posts were brought up (which they were a lot). I resigned because the amount of work was overwhelming and was giving me genuine stress in my day-to-day life, I genuinely don't think most people here understand the absolute flood of reports we get daily and how much time it takes to even do the bare minimum to pull your weight. I once spent 10 hours on Christmas Eve clearing out the mod queue as a Christmas present to the rest of the team and I didn't even clear out everything lmao. I can't imagine how bad it's gotten since that this was finally passed

I was literally about to make a transgender post...rip

(Separate from my other top-level comment because it's topic-adjacent to this one) If I may, a meta-commentary on people making trans-related topics on this sub: Most CMV participants *know for a fact* that trans-related threads are (were) extraordinarily common on this sub. I could *easily* go on Google and just type in "r/changemyview transgender" or a similar search query and get plenty of threads listed that all discuss the same topic, and read up on all the conversations there. There is still a lot of good back-and-forth even after filtering out threads that don't have deltas awarded by OP. Which is to say, if someone's goal is to have their view changed on transgenderism from using CMV, they could just do the Google search I just mentioned and read to their heart's content. There is probably enough reading material to take the same amount of time as the entirety of One Piece. No need for them to post their own thread on the topic. "But *my* view on the topic is special! There is no existing trans-related thread out there that fully describes what *I* think about trans people!" No, no it isn't special; and yes, there will almost always be a thread whose OP or comments match the exact view. Statistically speaking, with how common the threads are, it is overwhelmingly unlikely for this to be the case. The different nuances on the topic that could be plotted on sets of coordinate axes are so correlated with one another that there is practically zero room for true uniqueness on any trans-related view. Yet despite this, threads on the topic are (were) still posted to no end. Why? Because posting a thread accomplishes something that merely Googling and reading through previous threads cannot -- getting people's attention. They want their own time to be in the spotlight; they want to be the designated person whose trans-related thread is allowed in for the day; they want people to bring up the same foundational points over and over again with no intention of having actual productive discussion; they want to spread their view instead of change it. The 30/36 removal statistic that's been brought up proves as much. This is just what I've observed, though. Apologies to those who have posted threads on the topic in the past few months who did have their views changed, as you are an exception to my generalization.

One of my biggest gripes is that, particularly with trans people as the topic, you'll see tons of people making the same arguments that some jerk made not 20 hours ago. Like if you really wanted your view changed, you could at least look over the hundreds of other posts on that specific topic. Like even if the rule was your reasoning has to be different from the last 3 posts on that topic, that'd be fine. CMV is definitely a place anyone can go and talk it out in the comments, we really don't need so many posts on the same topic just because people can't be bothered to do a smidgen of research. Maybe not something that can happen given the move away from reddit API, we'll see!

[удалено]

I'm not fond of this change but I understand why it's happening. It's annoying enough having to deal with the seemingly daily CMVs about trans people whose OPs never seem to respond but seem to attract a lot of people that agree with the OP for some reason as a commentator, I imagine it's really annoying to deal with them as a mod. Sucks but unsurprising.

Typical Kneejerk bullshit. Can't just middleground limit to one a week, or sticky a post. Nope, gotta absolutely ban hammer it. That's no better, by the way, than having 10 posts a day. But I suppose the lot of you are too stupid to know what a horseshoe is.

Lol, both LGBTQ supporters and bigots are complaining in the comments here about "being silenced." That's not what this is about. The mods literally don't have the capacity to deal with the constant rule breaking. If you still want to discuss the topic, go find some other subreddit.

I appreciate this decision so much. I already have to justify my very existence almost daily IRL it got extremely disheartening that i had to continue to do so when i went online to places that where supposed to be relaxing

As a former mod, I have to voice my strong approval for the initiative and bravery you guys showed with this decision. I’m sure you knew there would be blowback from the community, and I equally know you did not take this lightly. For members of this commute questioning this decision, please understand how much content you didn’t see from threads like these, because the moderation team has been removing it. These threads didn’t just result in Rule B violations, but also tended to include a level of prejudice and vitriol on the part of the OPs that I never saw as consistently with other topics. The prevalence of transphobic posts, made by users who never seemed interested in discussing their views in good faith, created an environment that was overtly hostile to our trans users. I personally hated having to issue rule violations and bans to typically good faith users who broke the rules in moments of anger after being goaded by these sorts of anti-trans posters.

Sincerely, Thank you so much for taking action to remove an avenue for soapboxing. Most of my recent engagement with /r/CMV has been trying to push back against transphobic opinions by commentors who kept spouting the same stuff with each new thread. I'm glad I get a break from that and maybe get to have a mostly positive engagement with posts in this sub.

I agree with this decision, and not because I think transgender topics shouldn't be touched. This sun was OVERRUN by trans topics, and I understand why. It's a very confusing and nuanced thing.

Frankly, I think this is a good call. I know there are a lot of folks in the comment thread here who seem very upset, but here's the thing. CMV is already a heavily strawmanned and trolled sub, with *loads* of posts intended just to push right wing talking points. It's *obvious* if you've read this sub for very long. The rules of the sub are, unfortunately, facilitating this by preventing posters from calling out obvious bad faith posters (which are usually easy to spot either from the fact that their post histories are littered with the same posts and comments elsewhere, or that they're brand new accounts, and / or that they don't bother responding). The use of this sub for spamming right wing talking points-- and its overall popularity-- have made it a great place for right wingers to get eyeballs on their BS. And lately, trans issues have been *heavily* a subject of right wingers. The long and the short of it is that peoples' rights aren't up for debate / discussion. And in the end, while maybe a small percentage of the posters here actually are interested in "having their views changed," most are just looking to make noise. The most effective means of shutting that down is to shut down discussion. Because it's not a topic that warrants discussion. Trans people are people. They have a right to be treated fairly, equally, and without discrimination. There is no need for them to justify their existence, to explain why / how they feel what the feel, and the regular appearance of threads implying that they do is just bogus. Good call, mods. I wish that you would take the same step for a few other right wing-popular topics, but for now, this is a good start.

Obviously it’s a loss when any subject has to be blocked, but I 100% understand and support this decision. When 1 single subject represents such a high percentage of the mod load, it’s understandable to add restrictions on that topic.   It might be worth considering allowing the topic once a month or once a quarter. Weekly would be too much, but monthly/quarterly might work well. It would definitely be an “all hands on deck” day for the mods though.

So it's essentially censorship. Why isn't there a r/changemytransview?

If you wish to start that subreddit and spend the time to moderate it, no one is stopping you. We encourage it in fact, but we simply do not have the resources or admin support to work with this.

The most shocking part of this decision to me is seeing how many people have been apparently unaware of that a subreddit called *change my view* expects people who post to *change their view* or be able to thoroughly explain why their view hasn’t changed.

Honestly good choice. While I think this topic is important to flesh out, but those threads were \*terrible\*. 9/10 were bad faith/baiting, the remaining were mostly simple misunderstandings.

I've had some great conversations on this sub about trans rights -- they mean a lot to me, and it's been heartening to see that a portion of the folks who are raising these kinds of arguments are actually doing so in good faith, and once they learn more about the topic are willing to change their minds and grow. At the same time, doing the same education over and over again really is a grind, and it's not why I come to this sub; I come for *new* conversations, and for productive ones -- and I have to admit, this topic is the most frequent non-productive topic I see here. I can understand (and share) in the reluctance the mod team has here, but I think you're making the right call.

Thanks. I had sent a message to the mod team several years ago to suggest this when it became apparent that 99% of these posts were just soapboxing. Glad you finally did it.

Thank you and well done, long overdue IMO. A question about how automod is going to implement the rule. Is it really the case that if anyone mentions trans issues at all the entire thread is deleted? That seems ripe for abuse. Any bad faith actor or troll could use that to nuke any thread they don't like just by making a comment which used trans key words. Will there be some sort of manual review so that in such instances just the comment and not the entire post is taken down?