They’re not wrong though, they just left out that it’s two way street and just because you feel something doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for your actions.

The feeling is valid, but the action could be inappropriate or damaging and that’s not okay.

“I feel Z so you need to stop X or do Y for me” is not okay.

I think the phrase "feelings are valid" have ended up being... less than ideal for communicating the backing idea. When I talk to mental health professionals they tend to say "your feelings are valid" relates to two fairly incontrovertible things

1. You feel what you feel

2. It is not a moral failing to have a particular emotional reaction in the moment since these are not within our control (acting on the emotion is)

The word "valid" ends up granting connotations that the rationale a person applies to why they're feeling their feelings is somehow reasonable or correct. Many emotional reactions are not reasonable or justifiable and the most reasonable course of action may be figuring out how to repress that emotional reaction in the future - phobias are an excellent example here.

I think you're seeing that exact miscommunication here, others are reading "valid" in the normal use of the word while you're using it in this more colloquial fashion.

Sure, that's a problem in almost every form of communication.

What I mean is you don't get to choose what emotions you feel. So making someone feel wrong/bad for feeling them isn't useful.

> two fairly incontrovertible things

You say this, but neither my wife nor I took either as incontrovertible until the last few years.

I don't have a better way of discussing it or bringing it up though. Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding?

> Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding?

Not a single phrase because there's a decision matrix around the reaction:

1. Do I think I understand why the emotional reaction is happening? 2. Do I think the emotional reaction is healthy? 3. Do I think the emotional reaction is reasonable?

And how I respond depends on the answers to these questions. When the answers to the questions are "no" I fall back to building a space of emotional safety things like:

"Thank you for sharing your feelings with me", "it's ok that you're feeling that way", "feeling that way doesn't make you a bad person". These statements tend more conservative if I'm feeling it's important to remove misunderstanding.

Sure, that's in an interaction, but that kind of phrase is a good starting point when talking about the situations in the abstract. As in any conversation, you then adjust and clarify as needed.

Exactly. Telling someone that holding hands isn't your thing is fine. Making them feel like they're abusing you if they do it is not.

I tend to agree. There is no true self.

However, does this claim not fly in the face of "identifying as" a particular gender, race, tribe, etc?

And what of opinions formed on the basis of incomplete and/or insufficient information?

> However, does this claim not fly in the face of "identifying as" a particular gender, race, tribe, etc?

Yes, but it also implies people identifying as cis might be wrong about it, so it's a pretty equal if unpopular standpoint. Nevertheless.

There are a lot of real life self identification situations that aren't accepted by society - mostly ethnic groups. Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren[0], Europeans who get mad when Americans claim to be sixth-generation Irish, are different cases here.

[0] her situation is not that unique btw - it's actually very common for white people in Oklahoma to believe they're part Cherokee. Since they believe this because their parents told them so, I don't think they're doing anything wrong, but it's the kind of unpleasant surprise you get when your 23andme results come back.