all 13 comments

[–]ech 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The idea is that the premise you're invalidating ("I'm a woman") is so core to his identity, and how he experiences the world, that you're invalidating his existence and humanity. TRA discourse isn't the first type of newspeak to resort to these exaggerations. It's the same reason disagreeing with BLM on anything is "violence."

[–]hellamomzilla 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's also because men who view themselves as women require actual women to tell them how the man is really a woman. It's why, all of a sudden, getting into women's bathrooms and locker rooms and shelters and prisons was so important -- they'd be able to force women who would otherwise intentionally stay away from them into having to witness and stay silent about the man in their midst.

[–]venecia 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly. And actually, for some of them, the aspect of their fetish that is the most gratifying is knowing that they have infiltrated women's spaces and are getting away with it. Straight from the horse's mouth. The validation they supposedly need to feel like women/human being can be used by the fetishists and there is literally no distinguishing between them.

So, that's fun.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is exactly it. They are obsessed with validation from WOMEN. This is why they fixate on women acceptance in the public and not men.

Men get a free pass about how they support. What happened with Damien Barr is a textbook example of this standard.

[–]fogellegof 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's a hatecrime to 'invalidate' ones identity. I don't think you can't invalidate a person, either, but I'm not an english native, either. I like the example of atheism: If I say there is no god, does it 'invalidate' every christian? No. It just means that I don't believe in what others are believing. But in terms of gender ideology, no second opinion is allowed.

[–]threefingersam 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, disagreeing with gender ideology is modern day blasphemy. Sigh

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(and the obvious emotional mechanics -- they narcissistically need continuous validation from others)

[–]venecia 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When all you have to make your identity real is words, feelings, and validation from people you think you ''are'', it can be shifted with every change in the wind.

If they were so confident that they simply are women, it wouldn't matter any if someone misgendered them or said they're not a real woman. Hell, I've gotten those comments (for not having children) and I just laugh. I am a woman because I am, period.

[–]jelliknight 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Haha, perhaps they're unintentionally using the first meaning of the word?

"I'm a woman!"

"No you're not, you have testicles and a Y chromosome."

"You're invalidating (proving incorrect) my identity!!"

[–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Validating feelings is part of emotional relationships and it's an important skill to use with the people you love:

It's a way to show emotional support. Validation doesnr mean agreement. You can disagree with someone and still validate their feelings. It's an important way of communicating with your children by making them feel heard while enforcing boundaries. Validation is also an important tool in negotiation.

However, no one owes you validation, and random people on the internet even less so. Validation is a way to emotionally connect with someone, it's emotional labor, no one owes you emotional labor and an emotional bond. Also, validation doesn't mean agreement at all.

In short, TRAs have hijacked a term for building emotional bond into an obligation of society to cater to them.

[–]Spikygrasspod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not your fault; the linguistic confusion is deliberate.

In this context, "validate" is being used to mean "affirm". In order to "validate" someone's gender identity, you need to agree with them when they tell you they are a man or woman, or feminine or masculine, even if this is demonstrably incorrect. You must not say that you think they are incorrect, nor use any language that suggests that you believe man or woman are categories with criteria that they fail to meet.

No, people don't become invalid or cease to exist when you disagree with them, even when you disagree with things they say about themselves. But "Disagreeing with statements I make about myself makes me extremely upset" is a less winning phrase than "Invalidating my identity means erasing my existence".

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's to do with the narcissistic collapse AGP have when their female persona is questioned.

If you "invalidate" them their fake personality literally disappears causing them to feel they don't "exist".

TiF can also get something similar if they have a personality disorder.