To be valid.

[FloralBunting]

Some of the jargon around Genderism and the wider woke worldview is ripe for mockery, and I don't think there's much wrong with that, but it's not the most useful response.

One of the terms which interests me, because of it's ubiquitous nature, is 'valid'. Lots of people talk about being validated, via their identity claims, and the basic demand to say TWAW, TMAM, etc. is a flashpoint from the genderist perspective because by not agreeing, we do not 'validate' the identity, which is accorded a power akin to an act of genocide.

I've been trying to unpick what is going on here, in the hopes of some sort of understanding. What is a a person desiring when they want to be 'valid', and 'validated' in their identity?

In terms of bare etymology, valid springs from strong, so there is a follow through here of someone's ideas about themselves being 'made strong' by the validation they receive.

But I think even most adherents to these ideas will eventually acknowledge that if you need external support for something you claim is inherent within you, then you're not really strengthening anything, you're just putting in flimsy scaffolding, dependent on others.

I'm beginning to pick up that there is something else going on with this plaintive cry 'I am valid!' What I'm seeing is a group of people who are so crippled with insecurities they doubt their worth as human beings. People who are looking at a big, frightening world and shouting "I mean something!"

In essence, I'm seeing this particular bit of the jargon as a very specific part of the religious impulse that underpins so much of the Genderist, Identity-focused movement. When you see people repeating that phrase "You are valid", they are offering each other the same sort of comfort more traditional religious believers offer when they say "God loves you, you are not forgotten, you matter."

I suspect this is why the simple, logical discussions about the material reality of sex don't really cut any ice - you are trying to talk to a different part of the human psyche with a scientific argument. Genderist ideas arise from a different place. They may co-opt a few science-lite ideas, like a Creationist from Answers in Genesis might quote a few scientific journals, but the heart of these ideas is philosophical - it's a search for meaning and personal truth.

Which is probably why, as tempting as mockery may be, it's ultimately counterproductive in actually pulling people away from the damaging ideas at the heart of Genderism that have such devastating real life consequences.

So a young woman who rejects the prevailing culture of what it means to be 'a woman' and demands that, as an Non Binary person, she be acknowledged as 'valid', with attendant pronouns, is doing more than just being a bit controlling. She's trying to assert that she matters.

It's an existential, religious cry, not a statement about material reality. We're all, both genderists and those of us who reject gender, making category errors when we don't grasp this, which is why so many of us are talking past each other.

Well, to be fair, I think if your job is to be a leader in any given recognized religion that has basic tenets about good, moral behaviour, I think it's not unreasonable to hold that person to a specific standard of public behaviour. Being the public representative of a religion probably shouldn't be any different in that regard of being the public face of a business, or a school, or a political party etc. I think expecting that, and according respect in that context is reasonable, tbh. It's not the ardency of their beliefs (Most vicars I know are not especially ardent, no disrespect to them!), it's the public representative thing.

But that respect does trickle down to believers. The very fact of being an ardent and practicing believer used to make a person more worthy of respect.

I think people who feel respect for those who have strong faith may well swallow the trans mantra wholesale because of this unconscious respect for someone else's belief.

I realise that the discussion has moved on from this, but I think it is quite relevant to point out that 'we' do give certain ardent believers greater credence because of their beliefs.

Yes, that is true, but in the UK we also have religious freedom and the freedom not to believe. I can say that I don't believe heaven exists, without anybody suggesting that I'm about to hang out at the local Catholic Church harassing the recently bereaved. Compare that to assumptions made about Maya Forstater.

I can support the right of muslim women to cover their bodies at the beach (people should be able to go to the beach) and nobody insists that to avoid charges of Islamophobia I must also cover up.

In contrast, anything less that complete agreement with the phrase 'trans women are women' is currently treated as blasphemy by the Labour Party.

I honestly think ardent belief in a religion is not accorded any special respect in the generally secular society we live in. It's respected as a freedom, sure, but I think most of the people I know see ardent belief as an oddity.

If it forms part of making that person a good individual in society, their faith might be nodded to as a motivator and seen as benevolent, but I think the vast majority of people, if they know a very religious person usually caveat "Floral is very devout, but she's also a decent sort, so we overlook the nutty novenas to St Peregrine..."

As a Catholic, I don't I get respect for that, any more than a friend who is a member of the Humanist society. We respect each other because we try to do good, but I always get the sense that I have that respect despite being Catholic, not because of it.

I agree with FloralBunting here. I think most of the social respect given to religious leaders is related mainly to them being leaders, rather than being religious as such. Some of it is also related to the fact that in many cases they are institutionally vetted in various ways and are overseen by some sort of administration. It's not been my experience that being identified as a religious believer creates respect in the general public, quite the opposite, quite a few people tend to assume it's related to being credulous.

But as far as a general tendency to respect intensity of belief, we do that in every sphere I think. Who do people admire - people with convictions who live by them, take risks on their account, give something up for them. Greta Thunberg is someone who a lot of people admire and even see as a leader based almost entirely on the intensity of her commitment to what she believes to be right and true.

"So basically what we understand as validation in modern terms is someone believing something (faith) and expecting others to believe it too (or at least pretend they do) so the first person can call it valid/true?"

The problem is to gender identitarians, it is not a belief (not a faith) but truth/fact.

And in that respect, in our modern, western world, they are worse than religions. I have had religious people try to convince me, etc. I heard them make the same mistake (mistaking faith for fact), but I have never seen them to such an extent abuse (and feel justified in their abuse) those that don't believe it.

JellySlice
Deeply religious people, and I don't mean just spiritual people, but the sort of people who actually, wholeheartedly, practice all the rituals of their religion, often do not see their religion as faith or belief, but as incontrovertible fact

There is a regular FWR , gender critical poster who fits that description

I think maybe people are getting into some less precise ways of speaking about faith vs fact. Most people who have "a faith" which is to say a belief system think that their belief system reflects the facts. That is the case for people who are Catholics or feminists or existentialists or whatever. There really aren't many people who think their view of the nature of reality is anti-factual.

If we want to talk about facts in terms of being things that are materially verifiable, that's really quite a narrow designation. Even within science which is itself a very specific and narrow set of parameters, you aren't just sticking with facts as such. Most of us believe all kinds of things that are really interpretations or extrapolations or systems based on facts, as well as our personal experiences which cannot be factually validated. What's more, what facts we notice, how we group facts, the questions we ask about the world, are all influenced by our previously existing way of thinking, so we don't even always agree about what the facts are.

I think a really significant problem is that in the west, many people believe that the facts are clear and can't be argued with, and they think the systems we draw from the facts are similarly obvious and incontrovertible. It becomes quite impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the system or the facts themselves, there is no basis for it. Any disagreement is the other people being anti-fact.

From that perspective, the complaint that gender ideology is simply anti-factual may cement people in that approach rather than drawing them to reconsider. I'm not sure what the answer to that would be though.

Regarding the genderist use of the word valid, I think it originates in the post-modernist claim that "all discourses are valid". By which they mean that all cultural ways of looking at reality are equally legitimate, from animist religions to modern science.

And the result of that equality (according to postmodernism) is that the only thing that counts morally is power, so the moral thing to do is to bolster those groups that have the least power. Which is why genderists pursue their claim of Most Oppressed Ever so feverishly.

It's really important to remember the huge influence postmodernism, as taught in universities everywhere in the west, has had in legitimating this ideology, because this sort of nonsense will continue as long as post-modernism holds such sway.

(Of course, postmodernists don't really believe in the equality of all discourses when it comes down to it - they may be willing to acknowledge the claims of herbalist discourse to be entirely "valid", but when it comes to treating their cancer, they'll be going to a modern oncologist every time. And in the same way, we get genderists who believe transwomen are women, but would never consider sleeping with one. The hypocrisy and incoherence is enormous.)

That just makes it sound like relativism-vs-absolutism write large kesstrel, which predates postmodernism by some way.

I tend to think it’s a reflection of the particular anxieties of younger folks who grew up online without a healthy balance of IRL interaction and socialization to create context. If you grow up alone in your bedroom with nothing but pornography, social media, and fandom for company, you would likely grow up feeling a general sense of unreality, uncertainty that you even really exist in physical form, that anyone sees you in any sense of the word.

So I think “valid” reflects the stresses of a particular sort of under 35 person who was vulnerable to extreme escapism and was not jostled from their isolation by their parents (either due to neglect, the loving assumption that the kid couldn’t possibly be up to anything problematic at their age, or the parents being prone to self-isolation themselves) and who found themselves desperate to “ping” and be “pinged back.” I’m out here, is anyone else? How can I know I’m here if no one pings back? Maybe I’m not real. Oh wait, another person says I am real, so I must be!

Combine that with the autism commonly found in kids who decide they are trans which means they have difficulty with the “other minds” problem already and you can see how you just have poorly adjusted kids desperate to be told they exist growing into adults who know no other way to feel real than to sit on social media and demand to be noticed, but noticed the right way, the desired way, a way the trans person can control. That is validation. When I notice you the way you want to be noticed, it’s validation. When I notice you in my own way, which is probably not the exact way you wish to be, it’s invalidation.

It's interesting because part of counselling/psychological treatment is to develop confidence in yourself and not be dependent on validation from others.

So I always find some dissonance when people demand I validate their identity. I wish my thoughts on it were neither here nor there. I respect peoples right to live and define themselves as they wish.

By the same token, I would like others to respect that my identity as a woman (adult human female) is important to me and I'm not changing my identity to suit them.

And the result of that equality (according to postmodernism) is that the only thing that counts morally is power, so the moral thing to do is to bolster those groups that have the least power. Which is why genderists pursue their claim of Most Oppressed Ever so feverishly.

This doesn't really even make sense on the face of it. If all approaches are equally valid, presumably that counts the ones that believe Might Is Right. You can't make any kind of rooted argument for elevating the oppressed without privileging one narrative as truth.

In trying to find it, however, I have remembered where your name comes from, Ereshkigal. Nice one!

This thread is amazing.

Just a thought - perhaps the next time I have to read someone declare "ace aro demiboys are valid" I should just ask precisely what they mean by "valid"?

I have a sneaking suspicion the person making the declaration wouldn't be able to give a clear answer.

From what I've seen online the colloquial definition is "unassailable".

Floral,

This article seems to back up your OP.

www.theguardian.com/music/2020/apr/16/we-had-to-choose-between-us-or-our-loved-ones-bands-trapped-together-in-lockdown

(scroll down to Drew)

When I first came out and I was trying to be a woman and exist in public spaces, the only places I got validation for who I was, at first, were within the very small dance music community. So if the only people who use correct pronouns and see your struggle in this world are the people that you’re connected to through music and then you’re isolated, no one is creating that support system around you for who you are. It can get dark.

"exist in public spaces"

That language is soooo very odd.

I keep thinking of that Atlantic article that was posted in another thread, about children and anxiety.

Loads of women around the world have had bad experiences just by being women existing in public spaces...

That's the sort of thing I find so interestingly tone deaf about a lot of this stuff.

The quote is from an article about struggling with isolation because of Covid 19, not about being trans, so in this context I think they are just explaining why they are struggling - I have no idea what their thoughts are on this subject, but they aren't making a comment about sex based rights.

I just think it illustrates what Floral was saying in the OP:

"When you see people repeating that phrase "You are valid", they are offering each other the same sort of comfort more traditional religious believers offer when they say "God loves you, you are not forgotten, you matter."

So if people in public spaces aren't constantly signalling that they believe what you want them to believe then you don't exist? How many acknowledgements per hour are required to stop this person vanishing into thin air?

You would expect that isolation with their constantly-validating loved ones would be easier for Drew than having to 'exist' among the unbelievers outside their bubble.

This requirement for valid goes beyond even religion. No person of faith requires or even expects that an outsider will give them faith-based comfort.

What they seem to want is basically to impose a genderist version of the situation in Iran, with public compliance with the belief system legally required and enforced by the state.

What they seem to want is basically to impose a genderist version of the situation in Iran, with public compliance with the belief system legally required and enforced by the state.

This is exactly and precisely what they want.

What they seem to want is basically to impose a genderist version of the situation in Iran, with public compliance with the belief system legally required and enforced by the state.

I have no idea what Drew wants - perhaps Drew is just expressing a need for identity validation, without believing that other people are obliged to perform this service.

However, I agree that compliance with a belief system is the end goal of self ID.