how to understand and respond to "you're denying my existence" (narcissistic injury)

[MsTiggywinkletoyou]

I'm starting this new thread to surface some valuable insights hidden away elsewhere.

stealthsquirrelnutkin said People's feelings about themselves and their 'identity' has never been in question. I'm really not sure if this talk of having one's "existence denied" is down to wilful ignorance, or just plain stupidity. This line of thought does not pass the most simple tests of reason or rationality.

I read this recently on GenderCritical Reddit.

"I think when they say "you are invalidating my existence" they really mean it. The woman they "create", and are in love with, only exists through them putting certain types of clothing (makeup, affectations) on and presenting "her" to the world. If you see through "her" to him, "she" doesn't exist."

Which would explain how differentiating between male bodied people with a feminine gender identity and biological women determined to preserve their sex based safe spaces can feel like a "hateful" attack by someone "threatening your very existence".

Ereshkigal responded It's experienced as a "narcissistic injury"
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-legacy-distorted-love/201608/the-destructive-force-narcissistic-injury

And I was minded of something odd in the otherwise thoughtful blog of a Quaker transwoman Clare Flourish. It is my right to specify how I should be imagined, or how I should not be imagined. I am not a man. I am vulnerable, and suggestions that I am a man can cut to my heart.
It seems to me the exact opposite, that the one thing nobody can control is how others imagine (i.e. think of) them. You can police people's speech (if politeness doesn't get you the validation you crave) but the one thing you cannot police is their thoughts and imaginings. clareflourish.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/are-quakers-transphobic/

So we have a psychological term for a psychic hurt. Is this "narcissistic injury" a technical phrase for what is elsewhere known as the "literal violence" of misgendering?

Can any of these insights lead to better conversations?

The only way to respond to you're denying my existence is to say no, you're denying mine.

If feelings make the woman then most of us aren't women. It's very easy to understand if they aren't tantrumming

I don’t believe you can reason with such a person. The idea that we must bend our minds to their will is non-negotiable.

The only two approaches I know are:

1. If you are sure you are physically safe, keep pointing out every inconsistency. Stay factual. Point out nobody is denying their existence, but that it’s impossible for anyone to change sex. Continue to argue in a factual way. Men are demanding women’s rights are extended to them.

They will twist your words “are you saying we should check everyone’s genitals?” Point out the fact they are twisting your words and repeat your question or statement if they haven’t come up with a valid response to your point.

2. If you cannot guarantee your safety (physically or mentally) walk away from the discussion.

You can’t win the narcissist over. But you may find you have clarified in your own mind how you feel. And you may bring realisation to anyone reading or watching that you are the one with the rational and reasonable position.

transwomen exist

not denying that fact

transwomen are women

definitely denying that ideology

I think the problem is that people feel they can control their identity. But identity is a negotiated thing. It's how we see ourselves and also how others see us. If we assume that everyone else sees us as we see ourselves then we will be eternally disappointed. We have to negotiate and come to some sort of common understanding of how we are seen. That, to me, is why feminism is so important. It is about renenegotiating our identities with an often hostile other. But biology will always be a major part in that negotiation.

Agreed. With the insistent space invaders narcissism is very much central to their deal.

When I was a teenager I used to “identify as” a Mod but being so young I could only afford one Fred Perry shirt and my mother’s turn around on the washing front wasn’t up to scratch. So every time I met someone and I wasn’t wearing my Mod uniform I’d say “I’m a mod, I don’t usually dress like this”. If they had used their imagination to perceive my outfit as the Topshop plain white t-shirt and jeans I was wearing, rather than the FP polo shirt and mini skirt I required them to conjure up, I would have been very distressed.

I'm not denying anyone's existence, just choosing not to share their religion.

OVAgroundWOMBlingfree

I quite love that story

The only way to respond to you're denying my existence is to say no, you're denying mine.

That’s a good one!

The only way to respond to you're denying my existence is to say

No, I can see you - you are standing right in front of me. You definitely exist, don't be silly.

Surely?

(When they say existence they mean their delusion.)

I'm not denying anyone's existence, just choosing not to share their religion.

This.

I really do not believe you can argue with the ones so far gone that they think you are saying transwomen do not actually exist and that. Its just such a bullshit argument. Who on earth doesn't think transwomen exist at all?! Its nonsense. We can see them for gods sake, and the fact that we argue that they are male, surely says we acknowledge they exist, just deny they are female.

Isn't it partly a feature of autogynephila and partly the Greek myth about Narcissus?

The AGP is so much in love with the fantastical woman within, that he is hurt and will do anything to protect her from mockery or denial. I've seen AGPs compare it to a man standing by a wife who has been insulted.

Narcissus fell in love with the beautiful reflection of himself. When he couldn't have the object of his desire, he killed himself.

I also think that transpeople try to give the impression that they face a form of ethnic cleansing and will become like The Disappeared in south american countries. Hence the references to fascists and nazis.

There's not much that you can say to the AGP/NARC directly. It would enrage them to be directed to the appropriate page on the NHS website

www.nhs.uk/conditions/personality-disorder/

I'm not denying anyone's existence, just choosing not to share their religion.

Afaik religious people don't claim you're denying their existence if you say you don't believe in god, or that you don't accept that their belief in something unprovable gives them any special status.

It is my right to specify how I should be imagined, or how I should not be imagined. I am not a man. I am vulnerable, and suggestions that I am a man can cut to my heart.

I've seen other similar statements. A wish to control how others, particularly strangers, perceive them. If their internal view of themselves is not reflected - correctly - in how others see them, that internal view clashes with reality and ceases to exist because that person can no longer believe it unhindered.

But Clare's statement above basically states 'hello stranger, I wish to control your mind and perceptions, and you will co operate with this because here are my reasons why you must prioritise me and meet my needs. Please now enter a co dependent relationship with me.'

Not ok and not healthy in any way. Clare needs to work through this need to force others to meet Clare's needs with a good mental health professional. Not least that Clare does not give a damn about whether the other person in the transaction Clare has co opted them for has any vulnerabilities themselves: Clare is the recipient of care in this script, with no arguments allowed. And as has been proved many times, even when 'allies' (loathe that word) run around in circles enabling this by pouring on the validation - really not a healthy or behaviourally appropriate relationship for adults to have - they will still accidentally at some point fail to exactly meet Clare's needs and Clare will then feel entitled to pour Clare's injured feelings and behaviour all over them to punish them for it.

This is bloody awful behaviour. That's it. That's all.

It was MN that taught me to say no to co dependency years ago, or to walk on eggshells, or to enable or even accept others treating me in ways that intrude on my boundaries.

existence

noun
mass noun

1. The fact or state of living or having objective reality.

So, yeah. Maybe I am denying your objective reality.

"you're denying my existence"

''No, I am establishing my boundaries''.

" The only way to respond to you're denying my existence is to say

No, I can see you - you are standing right in front of me"

That is pretty much it. "I am not denying your existence. You exist. I deny you are female/a woman." Or when they say you are dehumanizing them (another common hyperbole driven statement by these mentally ill people) "I do not deny you are human, I deny you are female/a woman."

This won't work with them, of course, but observers might catch on.

I think Mamello is spot on with this:

I think the problem is that people feel they can control their identity. But identity is a negotiated thing. It's how we see ourselves and also how others see us. If we assume that everyone else sees us as we see ourselves then we will be eternally disappointed. We have to negotiate and come to some sort of common understanding of how we are seen. That, to me, is why feminism is so important. It is about renenegotiating our identities with an often hostile other.

The whole trans ideology is about putting ‘gender’ back inside the individual, to see it as an innate quality, without any social aspect at all, thus undoing pretty much all of second wave feminisms work to show how gender is a vast set of social expectations people are socialised into, and subjected to, by an outside social word.

The concept of ‘identity’ and identity politics was initially about analysing how raced and gendered aspects ofthe social world placed people in groups with particular needs and challenges.

Some of bell hooks work in the 1990’s about black people in the US and the civil rights movement very clearly established the importance of focussing on black identitities, but didn’t stray into the shitshow we are living through now, where allidentities are conceptualised as cut loose from the social world and social power dynamics.

And any observation that power dynamics haven’t changed at all; that this keeps prioritising white affluent men, same as it always were, is just mean and phobic.

Narcissus fell in love with the beautiful reflection of himself.

With Narcissus, he was a bit of a looker so it at least makes sense

I always think that if you imagine the "female" persona as some kind of alien that took over the original body in some kind of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" move then "you're trying to deny my existence" makes perfect sense.

The female persona only exists to the extent that both the original host and everyone around them is willing to pretend it exists. So when you don't play pretend, then you're literally murdering it. And it's always going to keep needing more - once it's completely consumed the original man who conceived it, then it's going to keep demanding more and more validation from those around him, consuming them too in its quest to stay alive. (There's something very interesting in their too about womb envy - the "female" persona has been conceived, gestated in secret and eventually launched into the world by a man on his own.)

I am fully aware that the "invasion of the body snatchers" metaphor is not kind but I find it very useful as a way of understanding weird over the top AGP rhetoric. I'd like to find a less mean way of achieving empathy!

I don’t believe you can reason with such a person. The idea that we must bend our minds to their will is non-negotiable.

True! You simply cannot reason with a narcissist. They will only listen to nor hear that which validates their self image. The narcissistic ego is an incredibly fragile and brittle one - and its roots lie in essential insecurity; in a wound. It is utterly pointless to try. Everything will be deflected and ramped up to hysterical proportions.

Nobody is trying to deny your existence. I am not trying to deny your exist. you clearly exist. I can see you. Your feelings about yourself, though, do not constitute reality for anyone else except for yourself. You are a man who thinks he is a woman.

This is all really helpful, thank you everyone. I'm trying to think of parallels where ordinary people will say to people they consider either deluded or mistaken or transgressing boundaries, essentially, yes you're right, I am denying that aspect of your reality. So say an ordinary person of faith (not a priest or rabbi or leader) says, "I know you say you are a Christian/Jew/whatever, but I don't consider you one." Like that onlooker of a terror stabbing: "you ain't no Muslim bruv". Mormons think they're Christians, but some Christians disagree. Scientologists think they know the truth, but the German state sees them as "an abusive business masquerading as a religion" (Wikipedia). Or for a non-religious example, all those millions of Americans who say they're Irish, but have no connection to the real country. Irish people and the Irish state have every right to play along and indulge them, if they want to, or to draw their boundaries and say no, actually you aren't Irish.

Women telling stalkers "No, you're not my boyfriend." Or telling self-identified Nice Guys that they don't consider them nice?