Is 'I feel' a good argument?

[TheresaMayIsATory]

"No philosopher should care how you feel about the existence of God, freedom, abortion or anything else, presented merely as your feelings. Your feelings have no claim to universality and do not automatically transfer to your audience. You might feel that God exists but that is no reason why anyone else should."

A.P.Martinich
Prof Philosophy
Uni Texas

This is an example of how weak the trans ideology argument is and you can quote the above to your MP (PPE) who should have some understanding of philosophy. It doesn't invalidate the feelings of others, it simply says their feelings have no application towards others. Trans ideology debating doesn't presenting a winning rational logical argument which is why #NoDebate.

OP you‘re spot on, I think. They don‘t explain why Their feelings should be everyone else‘s responsibility, because they have no proper explanation.
And that could be your argument in discussions: If you infringe everyone else‘s right of free speech, freedom of belief, protection of privacy (changing rooms etc.), then you must come up with a justification, because my feeling is that I feel violated by you. And I see no reason that your feelings are more valuable than everyone else‘s.

It can be true when discussing trans ideology, their testimony 'I feel like a woman' may be true and that is ok. What they don't explain is how their subjective personal feelings are the responsibility of everyone else. In everyday life feelings are useful when discussing a top, this is a wider political, legal and social debate that I want to discuss in a logical way because it will produce a local conclusion.

I do think that the trans issue as well as other identity must be seen though a MH perspective. It isn't people making logical arguments. It is people trying any trick in the book (inclduing co-opting philosophical and political tactics) to feel more comfortable in themselves mentally, to normalisie the abnormal/ uncommon (sounds harsh, sorry) and that requires others to go along with their views.

It is not a political doctrine or logical argument. It is a MH symptom.

You're welcome seafret - it's always good to remind people that abusive men say they feel something when actually they don't, and are using it as a tactic to manipulate others. It's their thinking that is disordered and they're unscrupulous in their lies.

because they don't see the woman as a respected entity in her own right but an extension of themselves

I have certainly observed time and time again that many men don't see women at all - other than as a whipping boy

See I do think that they do often feel it, but they 'other' it. Projection onto someone else - a wife is convenient.

Obviously it can be a simple manipultaion tactic too.

But sociopaths/ psychopaths do very often have feelings and emotions (this was mentioned as them not haivng any on another thread). They just think that other people don't feel things as badly as they do, so it doesn't matter, they are simply concerned with themsleves, or it happens that other people are a pawn in the way their disorder (possible own trauma) plays out.

It is a MH symptom.

Don't agree with this as most abusers are very sane - they know what good and evil are. Some are Cluster B and some are not - but even Cluster B know the difference between right and wrong - they just don't care about the impact on others. Most never get a MH diagnosis anyway as they think everyone else is the problem. They also are treated as sane by the legal system. Lundy Bancroft is at pains to emphasise they are not mentally ill (they would use any diagnosis as a reason for "feeling" sorry for them in any case)

:)

I do think that the trans issue as well as other identity must be seen though a MH perspective. It isn't people making logical arguments. It is people trying any trick in the book (inclduing co-opting philosophical and political tactics) to feel more comfortable in themselves mentally, to normalisie the abnormal/ uncommon (sounds harsh, sorry) and that requires others to go along with their views.

It is not a political doctrine or logical argument. It is a MH symptom.

You are right, MH does have a place in this discussion. I think showing your MP or a journalist the flaws in trans ideology is an easy way to peak them without appearing bigoted. TRAs insist trans isn't an illness so like to shut down MH debate, this is something that can be used when they state 'I am not ill, I feel like a woman'.

But sociopaths/ psychopaths do very often have feelings and emotions

No, they lie well - they have zero to low empathy and conscience.

They say they feel but they don't - they say it because they know normals will believe them - or want to - so it's a great cover and a great way to manipulate others.

Sane in some way, yes, as in have some degree of organised code of conduct or belief system, but healthy? No. Personality disorders don't present in the same way as depression or pschizophrenia etc in terms of 'madness', but are still disorders. Once you have known a few people with them and worked out what is going on inside their heads, it is eye opening (and scary).

I am simply saying that these trans issues draw from a wide source.

*But sociopaths/ psychopaths do very often have feelings and emotions

No, they lie well - they have zero to low empathy and conscience.

They say they feel but they don't - they say it because they know normals will believe them - or want to - so it's a great cover and a great way to manipulate others.*

I agree that they lack empathy, but that is not the same as them having no feelings or emotions of their own. I think that they have entirely warped resonses to situations and other people.

To get back to the OP, this is my concern really that to most of us we wnat to argue abck logically but you cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. Or will coerce others to support their own agenda. Perceived of course by themsleves as necessary by internal justification.

For some people self-interest rules, and by any means. I don't think you have be totally evil for that to occur. But you can be mentally unbalanced.

A popular phrase in evangelical Christian circles is "A person with a testimony is never at the mercy of someone with an argument".

Fortunately this 'rule' can be broken, if the person is rational and doesn't have an entirely closed mind (or ears). It's a common phenomenon for people to start a theology degree or even training for ministry as a form believer and emerge an unbeliever or at least agnostic. The constraint then is more reluctance (or fear) of leaving the group than leaving the belief. I have no qualms whatsoever about total lack of belief in the supernatural but still have a lingering regret at the loss of the 'family' of my (nice, non fundamentalist) church. This is a bit off topic but I think this type of effect is somewhat relevant to how things work in practice.

Errol, very much so. The appeal to feelings is as much a cry for help as anything else. It's where you go when the rational arguments have reached saturation point and you need a white knight to come in and rescue you - the repeated use of emotion by a number of people in a community almost creates that community and the emotion is given bigger credence than the reasoned argument because of the relationships that are set up already.

I have a memory of Angela Raynor appearing in a short labour video that did the rounds on social media, alongside Dawn Butler discussing trans people being bullied.

Angela spoke in an untypical way that exerted power, control and aggressive toughness.

In transactional analysis 'I feel' is a way of expressing young emotions like power and control.

I find it interesting in a time of watered down critical thinking that the shadow minister for education is pushing the parroting immature way.

In the drama triangle a rescuer can change roles and become the oppressor. Why do some people want to create a drama and become an oppressor?

In the drama triangle a rescuer can change roles and become the oppressor. Why do some people want to create a drama and become an oppressor?

Becasue it is better then being a vicim? Espceially in a world where a victim is vicitm blamed. Like an abused kid becoming a bully.

Their own messed up boundaries lead them to not know how to relate/deal with other people/ themselves except unhealthily.

To feed on the sense of power and validation.

Oh a resucer, sorry. becasue they take on the feelings of the person they are trying to recsue, out of fear or guilt and lose perspective. Trying to make the world OK for that perosn and again at all costs. They have trouble with their own boundaries.

“Objectification is a critical reason why an abuser tends to get worse over time. As his conscience adapts to one level of cruelty—or violence—he builds to the next. By depersonalizing his partner, the abuser protects himself from the natural human emotions of guilt and empathy, so that he can sleep at night with a clear conscience. He distances himself so far from her humanity that her feelings no longer count, or simply cease to exist. These walls tend to grow over time, so that after a few years in a relationship my clients can reach a point where they feel no more guilt over degrading or threatening their partners than you or I would feel after angrily kicking a stone in the driveway.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Great discussion.

“Abuse counselors say of the abusive client: “When he looks at himself in the morning and sees his dirty face, he sets about washing the mirror.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

The difficulty I have is that "I feel" is very close to "I believe", and a lot of feminism's main tenets are beliefs rather than empirical facts.

For instance, two women killed a week is fact. However, the pay gap being a result of the patriarchy is arguably a belief - for every person who believes this, there is another who believes it's down to the life choices women make.

Someone asked for plain speak. Having looked through the thread, here is a summary of multiple posts, hopefully in plain speak. Please add critique.

The TRAs are using feeling in place of an argument. Feelings can't be proved or disproved, they are subjective. We are not invalidating their feelings. We are enquiring why they are infringing on others rights to free speech, free assembly, freedom of belief and imposing obligations onto others. They are doing this without additional reasons or justification beyond "feelings".

I might feel violated by TRAs, there is no reason why their feelings are more valuable than mine, yet their feelings are being treated like they are. The abuse GC feminists face is indicative of a rageful demand to validate trans emotions and deal with them because they can't.

It has also become increasingly apparent that the EA single sex exceptions are not being used effectively to safeguard women and girls' safety, privacy, dignity and wellbeing.

The difficulty I have is that "I feel" is very close to "I believe", and a lot of feminism's main tenets are beliefs rather than empirical facts.

For instance, two women killed a week is fact. However, the pay gap being a result of the patriarchy is arguably a belief - for every person who believes this, there is another who believes it's down to the life choices women make.

Good point. "I feel" is subjective, and as you pointed out "I believe" is similar, however a belief is something that has been cultivated with reason, multiple people can share the exact same belief, beliefs can be argued for using empirical evidence or rational deductive argument in a way that feelings can't.

I believe God exists and I feel God exists are different statements in my opinion.

Today I feel like shit

I am not however rushing to flush myself down the loo.......

Today I feel like shit

I am not however rushing to flush myself down the loo.......

Sensible

However, the pay gap being a result of the patriarchy is arguably a belief - for every person who believes this, there is another who believes it's down to the life choices women make.

It's a fact that only women can bear children and produce milk for them. It's a fact that women are, on average, smaller than men. It's a fact that these factors combined throughout history to produce the structural inequalities which persist today to varying degrees according to nationality and economic status.

A women makes her life choices in this context. (So do men, hence eg not taking up paternity leave)

""No philosopher should care how you feel about the existence of God, freedom, abortion or anything else, presented merely as your feelings. Your feelings have no claim to universality and do not automatically transfer to your audience. You might feel that God exists but that is no reason why anyone else should."

A.P.Martinich
Prof Philosophy
Uni Texas"

Somehow I feel very good about sharing the same view as a philosophy professor. I loathe the "I feel therefore..." argument. It has no meaning. Which is why gender (identity) has no meaning.

YY woman that is what I was trying to say. The objective thing and the mirror thing. Dissociation and projection etc.

TheresaMayisaTory sorry if I sounded short earlier re plains speak. My brain was hurting but i wanted to join in

I was just kinds meaning that while I understand the inclination to intellectualise the debate and reasoning, I just don'k this is where 'the other side' is coming from.

Sure it seems that what when you hear the Whittles and the Darvo etc but I do think that sometimes that is just because the mind can be astonishing in its ability to convolute and sometimes the more intelligent the perosn, the more 'reasoned' the 'logic' sounds.

My thoughts are informed by knowing people with MH problems includign entrenched delusions and strange beleif systems and having to overcome my own instinct to make it an intellectual debate when in fact tht does not help at all.

Also sometimes I have projected my own reactions onto people who are doing weird shit - cant think of non-outing example - but while I think they might be being devious and nefariously clever (maybe like I think my evil twin would do) it actually turns out that they are often being just lazily shit and lazily trying it on. Basic cunning rather than intellectual cunning if you see what I mean.

I do apologise to you all for sounding and writing like a drunk twerp most of the time when I post - I have health problems that affect my brain and finegrs! I had an education once

Also I do not give politicians much credit for being clever anymore, clearly they are being very stupid about this.