Request to undelete mod-deleted "Transgender" question

Question

@MadScientist deleted this question:

"Do Trans people want to change "their biological sex"? Is that impossible?"

He apparently also suspended the account for a day.

While the "claimant" text posted is definitely in poor taste, it undoubtedly does reflect what many people believe. The question itself is, thus, par for the course here.

The user posting the question also posted an answer debunking the claim. So this cannot be constructed to be a push-question either.

There are good answers to this waiting to be written, providing a good counterpoint to the original rant in public view. In actual fact, I was 95% finished with writing mine when the question was deleted without further warning.

I see absolutely zero reason why this Q/A was deleted and the user suspended, other than a knee-jerk reaction by the moderator. I request the question to be undeleted, the user's suspension be lifted, and perhaps an apology -- or at least an explanation -- be given by the moderator in question.

---

Also, I'd ask moderators not to abuse their "mod-hammer" powers. Deletion by mod rights means no voting, not even on a reopening. It also means that people might be cut off from posting an answer they might have been preparing, with no prior warning be given. This should be reserved for clear infractions of the site rules, and at the very least there should be an explanatory comment. It was IMHO definitely uncalled for here.

Answer 1

In brief:

• It is unclear what the blogger is claiming.

• It is unclear what claim the question is about.

• It is unclear how the OP's answer addresses the question.

Overall, it isn't worth the heroic effort required to save this question. Having a quality question on the subject would be welcome.

---

Here are just some of the things that would need to be fixed:

• The transphobic and ableist slurs are not welcome here. The question isn't about the slurs, so they should be edited out, and preferably warnings given on the link that it is NSFW.

• Anyone making a logical argument can choose to define words however they like, as long as they are clear about it. The blogger first conflates gender and sex ("They still insist on being treated as bona fide members of the opposite sex."), and then uses that to deny that there is a difference. Okay, in their vocabulary there is no difference. Fine. But that's not a claim. That is a choice of definitions. It is meaningless to ask "Is this blogger's choice of definitions right?"

• It isn't clear what they mean by "biological sex". It isn't a well-defined term in biology. It appears to be begging the question about whether humans have a simple binary sex. The question should be edited to avoid asking about that. (Alternatively, it might be interesting to ask separately if "biological sex" is a well-defined term in academic biology, even though I kind of gave away the answer just then.)

• It isn't clear what it means to ask "Do trans people want X?" 1.4 million people in America alone are not all of one mind. They don't all want the same thing.

• The title and the body of the question don't ask the same question, and neither of them are claimed by the blogger:

  • The blogger doesn't claim what the title asks: They don't say "Trans people want to change their biological sex". They say "They still insist on being treated as bona fide members of the opposite sex." which is a different claim.

  • The blogger does not claim what the question body asks: "Are "male" and "female" discreet states of being?"

Because the OP asked and answered their own question, we may be heroically working to fix this question without anyone actually caring about the answer.

Answer 2

The user in question was suspended for a year, which usually indicates that there is a significant history to the suspension. We generally do not suspend for a year for the first rule violation. In general most suspensions are for pattern of behaviour, and not individual actions

There is an inherent problem with using fringe sources as claims here. We do have more potential audience here than many fringe blogs of the kind that was quoted here. In those cases we might actually be doing more harm than good because we are giving a broader audience to potentially offensive fringe beliefs.

There was also another question by the same user that was deleted a day before for related reasons.

This specific question contains one outright transophobic slur, a few more insults and other offensive content. Sometimes it is necessary to reproduce offensive content to be able to debunk it or analyze it. This is not one of these times.

You can always write your own question with a better notable claim and self-answer it, if you have an answer that can no longer be posted on the original question.