Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
They're sorely in need of it in the sense that it's what many of them deeply desire and fail to get. Whether they're entitled to such validation is a different question. In my opinion, no one is really entitled to validation. But it is good-natured, not to mention wise, to be well-disposed toward people who haven't done you any harm. And transgender people have never harmed me, at least not on account of their being transgender. If anything, they've been more accepting of me than a lot people. So I return the favor.

I'm not suggesting that people in the minority require special treatment. What I'm suggesting, or trying to suggest, is that they should be treated like anyone else. My use of the word "validate" is to point out what J.K. Rowling might have done to make it clear that she isn't biased against transgender people. I didn't use it with the intention of suggesting that people are responsible for other's feelings. The only one responsible for your feelings is you.
You know, entitlement is a great word for all that crap.

Also, even if I was trans (I'm not) I don't see why I should care if someone else says something that, if viewed in a negative enough light stemming from existing psychological-emotional issues of the viewer, can be seen as bias against transgender people.

No, I don't see why I would care to take it personally even if I was trans, since I don't even know the person.

And expecting a person to fix their wording "correctly" and in the "proper" way just because the person who "sounds like" they MIGHT have bias, sounds that way because the offended person has issues (and by "issues" I don't mean them being trans but just generic psychological-emotional issues)......no that is not about trying to get treated equally like anyone else. No, it's the offended person pushing their own issues on the other person who "seemed" to have the "bias".

I'm sick of this whole new fashion of needing to "validate" people's every single little feeling. The word "validation" is complete bullshit there. You are responsible for giving yourself validation first and foremost, no one else can be expected to give it to you. Anyone else giving you validation is just a bonus and doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things eventually.

So your first sentence - bolded by me, my answer to it is this exactly. Validate yourself first, don't expect others to do it for you just because you "sorely" "need" it. Then when you are no longer "sorely in need of it", you can enjoy it from other people too as a bonus. Until then nah. Until then it's just crappy entitlement and even if you get the "validation", your issues will not get fixed from it so you will constantly "need" more "validation" and get to feel more and more entitled to it. No, it can only be a bonus, not a need. End of story.


Addition:

But it is good-natured, not to mention wise, to be well-disposed toward people who haven't done you any harm.
Sure, but my and other people's idea of well-disposed behaviour is different from such entitled people's idea on what it should be. So, this is where the devil's in the details even tho your line may sound reasonable at first sight/first read/on the surface.

It'd be an incredibly intrusive boundary violation to expect me to walk on eggshells and change my wordings of stuff and suppress my own self and my own expression/way of being just so entitled people can be satisfied.