This response is broader than your reply, I’m not strawmanning you or implying that you believe in every position that I’m arguing against here, I’m just making my position clear while reminding myself of what I might have meant by the sentence I wrote 8 months ago.
I agree that both can be true, but even for somebody who isn’t trans, having a social space which accepts you will do wonders for your mental health. If I could transition and have a space which accepted me afterwards, that would probably be a good experience even if I wasn’t trans in the first place. But it feels as if the good feelings which stem from being validated are used as proof that what’s being legitimized is modeled correct? That seems like a dangerous assumption to make. Also, the comment I replied to makes transsexuals out to be harmed by conformity, and yet all discussions about it are exclusively herd behaviour in my eyes. If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
Their mental well-being will benefit from a community which is pro-trans. But an overweight person will also feel better if they’re not treated as lesser because of it, and somebody who has facial surgery will feel good if everybody compliments them on how pretty they are afterwards. If we’re going by feelings, I will benefit from all validation of my actions—including the actions I’m taking which are hurting me. I’m also skeptical of the tolerance of a community which is specifically “pro-trans”. I want to be in a community which is open-minded, rather than close-minded, and a community which is only accepting of something so specific, and hostile to those who have other opinions, is not open-minded. An actually open-minded community will accept you for being trans, but also for being a furry, conservative, anarchist, or anything else.
In the first place, I think the context in question contains misunderstandings. If a doctor tells an overweight person to lose weight, that may make the overweight person feel attacked, but it’s still an act of good will, even as it’s causing displeasure. Validation is not always the moral action. The opposite may be moral (for instance, a family gathering at an alcoholics house to stage an intervention and get them to quit). I think it’s very dangerous for society to get the idea that making other people feel bad is inherently immoral. This error is prevalent in academic psychology, online moderation and most of politics, and it seems like a regression to pre-reasoning.
In short: conformity towards the opposite position is still conformity, all humans feel better when they’re validated, being validated is not evidence of the correctness of thing being validated, feeling better is not necessarily good for you, and making others feel bad does not necessarily harm them or intent to do so
If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
It is frustrating (assuming our good faith) when one’s interlocutor is unable to engage properly. I’ve experienced both sides of this sort of exchange. If one isn’t secure in their identity, any inquiry into their identity can feel like an attack.
I think it makes more sense to look for people whose self seems settled than to look for a way to talk to insecure people. Their expectations of self-integrity might not even be at “Gendlin’s litany”-level yet. They might only have reached “I can feel ok about myself if I stick with my guys and stop talking to mean people”. It’s not feasible to hold someone to a higher standard of integrity than they do themselves.
All of that to say: I agree! We should hold ourselves to these standards, and help others do the same.
I’ve sort of left out one point of yours, regarding possible harm. I don’t know how to approach that, because I’m not sure with whom responsibility lies, and object-level my knowledge of risks and biology is lacking.
This response is broader than your reply, I’m not strawmanning you or implying that you believe in every position that I’m arguing against here, I’m just making my position clear while reminding myself of what I might have meant by the sentence I wrote 8 months ago.
I agree that both can be true, but even for somebody who isn’t trans, having a social space which accepts you will do wonders for your mental health. If I could transition and have a space which accepted me afterwards, that would probably be a good experience even if I wasn’t trans in the first place. But it feels as if the good feelings which stem from being validated are used as proof that what’s being legitimized is modeled correct? That seems like a dangerous assumption to make. Also, the comment I replied to makes transsexuals out to be harmed by conformity, and yet all discussions about it are exclusively herd behaviour in my eyes. If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
Their mental well-being will benefit from a community which is pro-trans. But an overweight person will also feel better if they’re not treated as lesser because of it, and somebody who has facial surgery will feel good if everybody compliments them on how pretty they are afterwards. If we’re going by feelings, I will benefit from all validation of my actions—including the actions I’m taking which are hurting me. I’m also skeptical of the tolerance of a community which is specifically “pro-trans”. I want to be in a community which is open-minded, rather than close-minded, and a community which is only accepting of something so specific, and hostile to those who have other opinions, is not open-minded. An actually open-minded community will accept you for being trans, but also for being a furry, conservative, anarchist, or anything else.
In the first place, I think the context in question contains misunderstandings. If a doctor tells an overweight person to lose weight, that may make the overweight person feel attacked, but it’s still an act of good will, even as it’s causing displeasure. Validation is not always the moral action. The opposite may be moral (for instance, a family gathering at an alcoholics house to stage an intervention and get them to quit). I think it’s very dangerous for society to get the idea that making other people feel bad is inherently immoral. This error is prevalent in academic psychology, online moderation and most of politics, and it seems like a regression to pre-reasoning.
In short: conformity towards the opposite position is still conformity, all humans feel better when they’re validated, being validated is not evidence of the correctness of thing being validated, feeling better is not necessarily good for you, and making others feel bad does not necessarily harm them or intent to do so
Yes, I think I get you now. This resonated:
It is frustrating (assuming our good faith) when one’s interlocutor is unable to engage properly. I’ve experienced both sides of this sort of exchange. If one isn’t secure in their identity, any inquiry into their identity can feel like an attack.
I think it makes more sense to look for people whose self seems settled than to look for a way to talk to insecure people. Their expectations of self-integrity might not even be at “Gendlin’s litany”-level yet. They might only have reached “I can feel ok about myself if I stick with my guys and stop talking to mean people”. It’s not feasible to hold someone to a higher standard of integrity than they do themselves.
All of that to say: I agree! We should hold ourselves to these standards, and help others do the same.
I’ve sort of left out one point of yours, regarding possible harm. I don’t know how to approach that, because I’m not sure with whom responsibility lies, and object-level my knowledge of risks and biology is lacking.