This poster has been buzzing around in various forms. A friend of mine saw this poster at UTAS recently:
Why 'Valid'?
'Valid' is an interesting choice of word. What does it mean in this context? Cogent? Coherent? Legally legitimate? I think I get what it is aiming to say: there are many identities that people can hold, that if someone holds it, they should be treated respectfully according to their expressed identity.
But 'valid' is an especially telling choice. For my identity to be respected and accepted in kindness... it must be legally validated in some way. A person cannot be received and loved unless they are affirmed and legitimised. It's not enough to have freedom to discover and/or define your identity: what you discover and define must be declared legitimate. It's not enough for me to respect your chosen identity, I need to legitimise it.
Does ANYONE Really Want to Say All Identities Are Valid?
Now I may not entirely agree with that as intended by the poster-maker, on their own terms and limitations, on transgender issues. But more: not even the poster-maker seriously believes this is a blanket statement, right? Does anyone really want to say that absolutely all identities are valid without exception?
— What of the extremely and destructively delusion identity: I am Satan?
— What of an identity of deep self-hatred: I am ugly, worthless and no one would ever love me?
—What of an immoral or self-destructive identity: sub-cultures around extreme eating disorders or extreme sexual practices?
— What of a conservative religious identity: I am not my experienced sexual and gender experiene, but am instead a child of God and should live according to God's norms as revealed in the scriptures of my religion, and not according to my experience/inclination?
We all outline certain boundaries around which identities are valid and which are not. I expect that the poster maker, and those sympathetic to its declaration would argue that such boundaries are obvious and commonsense and universally understood. But this is an assertion disguised as a fact. Manifestly this has changed dramatically in our culture over the last 100 years, and is different from culture to culture. It is not as intuitive as it might seem.
What Word Is Left to Describe Respect and Acceptance without Legitimising and Approving?
We need to work hard at treating people with dignity and respect, listening to what they saying, and accepting and acknowledging what they are going through. But part of loving other is to not entirely agree with and approve of their interpreation in all situations. The give and take of friendship, leadership, medical care and government is to respect individuals while also upholding other values and standards which may be considered unhealthy or immoral or untrue in some way.
I think we all know what this is like, when we are dealing with people whom we recognise to be severely and destructively psychologically disturbed or criminally inclined. We want to humanise the person and listen carefully to the person, while not accepting their current interpretation of their experiences.
But to use the example of the criminal or the mentally ill is painful and clumsy and ineffective. It sounds like millitant, hateful, fighting words... are you saying that X other group are therefore criminals? Is that what you're saying? How dare you...
So there is a gulf between this sub-category and everyone else. And no rational way to discuss whether something sits on one side of the gulf or the other. And no allowance that some of the realities that apply in the extreme cases, might apply in more subtle cases of psychological instability or immoral action.
We have lost words to describe this respectful treatment without agreement. For 'respect' and 'accept' and 'acknowledge' are now all loaded up with concepts of 'approve' and 'celebrate'. We need new words. It's tricky huh?
via Blog - Christian Reflections http://ift.tt/2hs5jYv (NB: to comment go to http://ift.tt/1FyvdLS)
