You did not preserve the substance of my post and show how women's rights and identity are not under threat.
— Andrew4Handel

What does this have to do with trans people using their preferred bathrooms? — Michael

I am not talking about peoples bathroom preferences and I don't know why you think I am. I am a male I do not get a choice of which which bathroom to use I am legally obliged to use the male or disabled bathrooms.

We are talking about legal lies here and giving men access to women's identities is a legal and existential lie being forced on us

Women should not have to accomodate men in their spaces and awards because these men have chosen to feminise themselves.

As a boy at school I was beaten up by other boys in the toilets and changing rooms which means traumatic memories for life. I never thought I should be able to use the girls facilities were girls are undressing. I hated showering after sports and being naked around other boys but we were forced to and then people would jump on me and another boy and beat us up.
Girls are going through puberty and experiencing their periods and the toilet is privacy and refuge. As a vulnerable child constantly experiencing male violence I never thought my vulnerability entitled me to womens things and I envied girls at times.

But no one can pull the vulnerability card with me I am gay male who grew up in a religious cult being told my sexuality was evil, also autistic and bullied and ostracised by people throughout child.

Exactly how many of the moderators here are gay, female, autistic and so on?

But the principle and philosophic point is that you can't call somethings a woman's right, space or identity if you include provably biological men in its category. Unless you can show that is possible.

All of the truth about everything, or just some particular truths about some particular things? — Vera Mont

Ideally fundamental truths like:

What is consciousness? What is the right thing to do? Is society fair? Is life meaningful or meaningless? Who is telling the truth and what beliefs are we taking for granted.

I do not think the truth has to be what is instrumental or what makes us feel comfortable.

I think that no after life has problematic implications for life and meaning and that moral nihilism is a negative conclusion but could be true.
It could be decided our behaviour is highly unethical such as failure to help the poor and disadvantaged and global inequality. I think creating new children is ethically problematic.

I don't think that trying to ascertain the truth would be an easy process just like truth and reconciliation projects. The truth may undermine our beliefs and values.

I don't seem to have a particular overriding goal in my life but if I had to choose it would be the desire to know the truth and understand the reality I have been thrown in.

Women's spaces and identities are for biological women. If a trans woman is in a womens toilets, or prison or sports they are no longer single sex areas. No one can or has changed sex so you are giving away women's rights and spaces for no reason. (And gaslighting them in the process)

I would never sexually or physically assault a woman so should I be allowed to use the womens toilets?There is footage on line of men dressed as women mastrubating in public in women's toilets and I posted a story earlier about a woman being raped in a woman's refuge.

But the main thing is the principle of the legal and biological fiction that men become women flying in the face of thousands of years of woman's struggles and now when they fight back for their own spaces and again they are could Nazi Terfs and bigots.

We are literally giving away other peoples spaces and identities to be kind and as I repeatedly mentioned earlier confused gay men with internalised homophobia have removed their penis and testicles because of this ideology and now live with deep regret. How many gay and autistic people doing this is enough?

How does one go about deciding which "things" are undeniably true, which are conditionally, provisionally, situationally, temporarily or partially true, and which things are false to what degree? How does one determine what truths are worth preserving, by what means and how long? How does one "prove" the grounds for sufficient ambiguity to dispute? — Vera Mont

Would you ask this to computer scientists, a rocket engineer or surgeon?

Obviously there is a successful method to do successful surgery and design a safe aircraft or to create a useful medical model.

You pose the question it seems any a way that seems to imply that it is too hard yet we already have a huge body of accurate and useful knowledge and ongoing disputes some of which get resolved.

I would just continue the current process but apply it more rigour in non science and technology areas. I think the problem is the unjustified claims interspersed among the facts (these can be the ones running society). When something is shown not to be factual then we institute an arbitration process such as how to run a society based on various people's desires and preferences and belief systems without the option of truth claims.

I am someone who left a childhood religious cult after coming to the realisation that it was false. I have never gone back and am irreligious. So yes it can be important to clarify to yourself and others what is and is not true. For some people it is easier not to go against family or society for an easy life.

Morality has failed and we have lost millions to war and genocide and preventable famine etc. And quite a lot of this seems to have been based around moral certainty and false "truths".

I don't think we have tried to base a society only on things we know to be true, yes it would be hard but not impossible.

Societies move from one set of dubious truths to another in what seems to be acts of self justification.

I think the reason for trying to create an equal society is that we cannot justify an unequal one which would mean installing laws that favoured no one group that or anarchy and I think that people would favour laws based on equality over anarchy. This has formed part of an ongoing process to some extent.

But this is just my opinions on a random forum and not a dictat.

You did not preserve the substance of my post and show how women's rights and identity are not under threat.

If you believed woman's rights and integrity was under threat and vulnerable non conforming gay men and autistic people what would you do about it and what would you do to defend these people?

What's that in plain English? And how does it reconcile morality (which brand??) with fact (which ones??) — Vera Mont

The problem that I see we have is that we cannot say "genocide is wrong" and that be a factual statement. This could lead to moral nihilism.
The truth may be that nothing is right or wrong and there is no justice.

Until we get to this point of acknowledging it our moral/justice systems will be a fiction. Acknowledging will mean we can decide that to do next and what the consequence is.

Some philosophers do acknowledge the problem of moral truths like Hume's no is from an ought and
that they cannot be comparable to scientific facts.

At a basic level it would be interesting to see what remains when we have clarified fact from fiction, faith, desires/wishes and supposition. I am skeptical that we are anywhere near building societies on facts.

How does one put morality on a fact based footing? — Tom Storm

By acknowledging that it is a set of preferences not facts divine or otherwise and not taking any claims for granted.

But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity? — Tom Storm

I am in the position like a lot of people to express an opinion on it and advocate for my viewpoint and ideas. Someone or some groups worldview always triumphs.

In a sense you are wearing away my confidence with this kind of objection. People often claim this issue is too big don't try and attempt to do anything about. Or that a persons opinions are not valid because of X, Y and Z which is a recipe for apathy.

And this is what was sort of referred to in The Rorty et al discussion I posted. Would you say to Martin Luther King "But who is concerned about any of this? Are you in a position to usher in a new world of conceptual understanding for humanity?"
Would you challenge his life and world changing statements by questioning his world view, authority and the truth value of his statements?

There are occasions where every little bit of activism and fight for your truth and values is vital.

I am not explicitly trying to campaign on here but in order to explain the issues or debate the issues you have to try and explain the real world issues that are at stake.

Because people are making other statements impugning the reasons for this is a debate.

And how does one test for "undeniability"? — Vera Mont

I gave an example in a previous thread where I said that we know language works because we can say something like "I live in the house with a red door and blue car outside" and people can successfully locate our house.

And we know facts about human anatomy because we can save lives by doing heart surgery. So we know that an array of things are true that can only really be questioned if you really believe everything is a radical illusion.

And on initial foundations of truth we can argue about the truth value of other statements.

Somethings may not have truth value like moral claims and I think it is best to acknowledge this and put morality on fact based footing rather than have to create a society on unsustainable fictions unless that is a commitment we want to make.

Maybe you could say what you think is wrong with that. — Jamal

Let's take ethnic or racial or sex differences.

I think in the case of the sexes and races I think it has been important to clarify where men and women and black and white etc are genuinely equal in the fight for equality.

I think we should not create artificial barriers and give people immediate equality of opportunity. But I don't see the value in stating something that can be proven to be untrue and that will not serve an individual or groups interest.

For example people with disabilities and learning difficulties, mental health issues, need and deserve special accommodations, so in some scenarios need to have real differences established and recognised. I have the concept of equal but different.

It would be a charade to act like people are all the same whilst they are struggling and acknowledging that you are only committed to something's truth on superficial level or social engineering but that it may be a complete fiction.

I don't think your outrage has or is going to convince anyone here, do you? — Baden

People are misrepresenting other people's concerns on this so it is pointless having a discussion based on false premises.

But there is a lot of anger on both sides of this debate. J K Rowling and others have recieved copious rape and death threats and cancellation attempts.

And I do believe in the concept and value of righteous anger. The question then is which side is right to be angry and why? And it is a case of who is angry and determined and persuasive enough to get the most attention and influence.

I can just post some random quotes and you can tell me what you make of them and I give my take. For example this seems to be saying that the truth is instrumental in so much as it serves a purpose and not whether it is intrinsically true.

"Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?"
William James

You have no right to give away women's rights and safe spaces and nor has woman the right to give away another woman's rights and spaces.

Why would you want to do this anyway?

People are really giving away women's rights, identity and security and this is why I consider this movement has now become a crime in progress.

Women and men are biologically real not feelings or gender identity. Nothing can change this and lying about this is living in a post truth society where we can no longer say we base things on truth value truth or reality.

It is major philosophical issue that I am now addressing in my latest thread. I don't believe you can base society and security around lies indefinitely or preserve coherence.

This is why I am going out of my way outside of this forum to campaign on this issue til I die.

People are giving away women's rights and denying their in some kind or orwellian Stalinesque dystopia.

Men are already accepted as women and it has led to men winning awards aimed at biological women including in sports, it has led to them entering domestic violence shelters for women and women's prisons in one case in america two female inmates were impregnated by a trans inmate.

"A transgender inmate has been transferred out of the only women’s prison in New Jersey after impregnating two female inmates."

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nj-trans-prisoner-impregnated-2-inmates-transferred-mens-facility-rcna38947

A woman was raped in a women's shelter by a trans identified man.

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/hunter-trans-woman-sexually-assaulted-shelter-resident-cops

These are women only spaces if you define women as a feeling in someones head and not a biological reality.

Do you mean I should quote published philosophers on this like pragmatists and relativists?

I watched the below video involving Rorty and in it they raised issue of the impact on civil rights movements on the idea that you can't define a concept among others such as whether you can define a vulnerable or threatened group or make a claim like "all men are made equal".

I believe that there is a fatal conflict between women's rights and identity and the concept of a trans woman.

I do not understand why people cannot grasp this. This conflict did not seem to exist when only a tiny amount of men identified as women so there was very little chance of a woman having a trans identified man in her weman only space or competing against her.

But I think it was a drastic mistake that I and others went along without thinking that lots of men would start identifying as women.

But to me this now ethically indefensible and cruel. Women are a biologically real and the people who create life and not a feeling in someones head. They are distinct from men in many ways and need protecting in various ways and recognising for themselves as a biological entity.

People are now fallaciously claiming they cannot define what a women is despite the fact we all grew in a woman's womb. This is gross misogyny and we don't give away other groups identities like this. It is wrong to impersonate a black person particularly because of the history racism and slavery and oppression and women have a similar history. And we are flagrantly giving away their rights, security and awards.

And this is one of the things that makes me very angry about this as well as the impact this is having on the gay community and autistic people, vulnerable children and the denial that gender affirming care is harmful.

Is this not still a claim made by anti-gay individuals, who suggest gay men have a genetic disorder of development? I would assume you would find such a claim offensive, yes? — universeness

What are you referring to? Intersex conditions are disorders of sexual development that affect people's development, reproductive systems among other things. They are not gender identities.

What does being transgender have to do with gay men? — Michael

I just explained it to you. In many ways. You are not listening and now you are spreading motivated propaganda.

Jack Turban is financially invested in trans ideology and their are no adequate detransition studies. Your sources all have an investment in promoting gender identity and no investment in critiquing their own standpoint. Detransition Reddit now has 47 thousand members and many recitals of the real reasons people transition and detransition none to do with family pressure.

Most studies promoting the success of gender have had to post retractions.

I as a vulnerable gay man from a homophobic religious cult and autistic could have sterilised myself and have had my genitals severed like Ritchie Herrin and ShapeShifter gay male detransitioners. Whilst you helped convince me I was a woman trapped in a man's body. It is ludicrous and frightening and you are clearly not listening.

You are not helping anyone even if you think you are. Telling people that they can live as the opposite sex as offering them false hope.

Or are you suggesting that transgender women just are men pretending to be women as an excuse to use women’s bathrooms and sexually assault them? — Michael

Transgender women are men. Caitlyn Jenner produced six children with "his" sperm and acknowledges being their father Anyone claiming to be living as the opposite sex is simply impersonating them. It is categorically impossible to change sex.

Being male or female is not a choice and womens spaces and sports were not intended for people's mental self perception but biological sex.

Yes women have been attacked in such situations so do your own research. All you are doing is defending lying and creating a society based on lies not on objective reality.

There is a limit to what I want to say about disorders of sexual development but no one is opposing these people as far as I can see anywhere.

They are not a justification for saying men can become women and vice versa. These people have a legitimate claim to resolve an identity issue based on biological reality. And most of them are identifiable as male and female and are males and females with disorders of development.

This is all a distraction from the issue of gay men having their testicles removed and penises mutilated then regretting it which really has happened and is happening. The increasing number of people regretting irreversible bodily damage due to identifying in as trans. These people are easy to find on You Tube prominent among them is Shapeshifter and Ritchie Herrin. Both gay men who experienced internalized homophobia and have no detransitionted. There are several more you can find including Chloe Cole child transitioner.

There is the closure of the closure of the Tavistock clinic in London that I mentioned. I have referred to a lot of stuff in other threads and could spend hours sharing links and discussing cases. The death of a teen who had been on puberty blockers in 2016 that has only just come to light and their are some terrible photos of what happened on line including other botched gender care surgeries. This has lead to a lot of European countries putting a halt on most gender treatments for minors.

I have mentioned elsewhere what happened to Jazz Jennings based on Jazzes documentary series (The most famous trans child). Jazzes penis was underdeveloped due to puberty blockers and Jazz had to have Jazzes scrotum expanded with water to create enough skin for a pseudo vagina. That was painful enough but then Jazz required at least 3 further surgeries to make the pseudo vagina. Jazz also developed severe depression coinciding with starting puberty blockers. This was all because Jazz liked wearing girls clothes as a 3 year old. He was identified as a candidate for lifelong medical interventions and castration which I find mind blowingly terrible.

Jazz's own trans identified surgeon Marci Bowers said that the surgery was problematic and that children who had these would be anorgasmic permanently. And most trans identified people did not transition as adults and won't experience this but advocate for this type of intervention.

Most intersex people I have heard advocate against "corrective" surgeries on their genitalia unless they choose them as adults.

There are no true human hermaphrodites as far as I am aware. Disorders of sexual development only occur in males and females. Usually in one sex alone like Klinefelters that only affects males. These are not transgender conditions but are being used as a trojan horse eroding womes rights spaces and gay rights.

The existential threat is to the truth and the honest use of language. Making everyone lie about reality for a minority. Gas lighting us that if we see a man enter a womens toilet he is actually a woman so we no longer trust our senses and protective instincts. Calling men "woman of the year" and sports woman of the year after having a grossly unfair advantage over women.

Calling women cervix havers and pregnant people and black birthing bodies. Calling same sex attraction a genital preference. All of which have been done.

What classifies as affecting me personally? The Rwandan genocide didn't affect me personally, nor the war in Yemen, HIV, famine or rape. That is not the only basis for ethical concern but there are many threats from gender, to my use of language, my future employment, to my neices and nephews bodily integrity, the abusive use of the medical service in malpractice that has lead to the Gender affirming Tavistock Cliniv being closed down and being sued by up to a 1000 families. My identity as gay person is being tied to the tqia++ in a move I did not consent to and tying me to the indoctrination, sexually inappropriate conduct and ethics and medical malpractice as if I personally endorse.

It is not Straight+TQIA++ it is gay people and any dubious harmful political, ideological fetishistic movement that is free to attach itself to our biological sexual preference.

I do not see why men should be able to legally identify as women and access women spaces. I can't think of another case where we impose this kind of fiction. Or what the ethical arguments could be.

Why should gender dysphoria entitle you to someone elses identity? An identity already occupied by the reality of biological females. A vulnerable easily identifiable definable group whose wombs we all grew in.

The solution to dysphoria is apparently life long medication access to other peoples spaces coercing people to use your preferred pronouns and to pretend they don't know your birth sex (a charade). And the only medical health care that is performed based on the patients self diagnosis and threats of suicide. And on top of this trying to get it redefined as not a mental illness and the equivalent to being born gay. (Being gay which does not require any medication, genital surgeries cross sex hormones or coercing peoples language or attitudes or access to the opposite sexes private spaces).

It is all very unfortunate, distressing and dysfunctional and unsustainable.

I am personally perpetually single. So I am not currently being in a situation where I could encounter a gay trans man.

But lesbian apps have been inundated by transbians and lesbians are having to meet up in secret.

But the issue is redefining what being gay means.

By allowing men to call themselves lesbians and women call themselves gay men you are undermining the nature of sexual identity and the meaning and lived experience of being gay.

Your position on religion would make more sense if I was defending religion, promoting childhood indoctrination which I absolutely oppose and if I was not a victim of a religious cult myself.
Also religion is faith based it is not allowed to demand we all change our beliefs, behaviours and attitudes.(in most of the west). And I am quite happy to oppose it all.
Trans people are protected by the same laws and have the same human rights as everyone else. It is not gay rights part 2. It is undermining the rights and same sex protections of women and gay people. As a gay man I have to accept women who identify as gay men in my dating pool after escaping a religious cult and where people encouraged me to become heterosexual and engage in relationships with women. Gay people fought against conversion therapy are now being told they have a prejudicial genital preference and are sexual racists.

I don't think people should be able to participate in surgeon assisted genital mutilation. There was the German case of a cannibal victim who consented to be eaten by Armin Meiwes. Consent does not resolve ethical issues. Gender ideology involves other people in its perpetuation.

Women have not all consented to having biological men in their spaces, winning their awards and in their domestic violence shelters. They are having this imposed on them from above.
Parents have not consented to have their children indoctrinated in schools under the guise of teaching tolerance.

A woman in British hospital heard a male voice in the bed next to her and she was told there were no men on the ward. This is gaslighting. Now it has come out that ther have been 6500 sexual assaults reported by women in British hospitals including a stroke victim who died after being raped. No one should needlessly compromise other peoples safety because someone else's desired personal identity.

These are not the concerns of a moral panic or phobia. In one sense we could just let it run it full course til the number of victims becomes undeniable to prove our point but already detransitioners are spontaneously amassing with tragic stories.

A lot of people in religions grew up in it and had no choice. Circumcision I would happily outlaw but it does not make you infertile or do major damage to your reproductive system and hormonal balance.

I was personally harmed by religion and I do oppose it to some extent and especially childhood indoctrination.

Unless you join Isis or a religious cult or had religion forced on you like me I am not sure what irreversible harm, especially bodily harm could come from joining a religion temporarily. I went to a few other churches a few times after leaving my family church before fully desisting from Christianity and had not unpleasant experiences there.

However the two situations are different and the harm of religion in no way justifies the harm of gender ideology.

Detransitioners prove that you can be wrong about your gender identity. There are no reliable studies in transition regret.

The harm of being wrong is irreversible damage to yourself. It is not the equivalent of regretting having a tattoo (which can cause some distress)

People say speak to trans people. Well I have spoken to four and am gay and on the autism spectrum which are both relevant to this and grew up in a religious cult like environment which makes me aware of the cult like aspects to this movement.

People would not be opposing this if it was really harmless. J K Rowling is a left wing humanitarian. She didn't just turn into a Nazi overnight she is protecting women's identity, integrity and spaces and has received copious death threats, rape threats and general twitter hate.

I think philosophy and social studies have played a substantial role in this by attacking the notion of truth.

They make ludicrous exaggerated claims about things that we can actually be very certain of to imply an unjustified level of skepticism that is inappropriately applied. Which has made ripe ground for denial of biological reality.

You said you find Islamic child marriage more horrifying this.

Now you seem to be mocking the reality of irreversible genital mutilation of gay, austic and gender confused young people. Or severely down playing it.

I have not seen a proliferation of other groups talking about similar regrets.
And this is called gender affirming health care ( a billion pound industry)
Woman face is black face. Transgender is the same principle as transracialism and trans ablism. Appropriating someone else's protected characteristics. No man should be given access to women's spaces and awards due distress with their birth sex. That is misogyny and gaslighting women. Other peoples identity and privacy should not be given away due to someone else's mental health. That does not happen in any other area of life.

There are several gay men on YouTube now who talk about the regret and pain of having themselves castrated and their penises removed due to internalised homphobia and being caught up in gender ideology and misled.
It has now been revealed that a teenager in Europe died after having a vaginoplasty on his penis that was irreversibly shrunk by puberty blockers which makes the already harmful surgery much more complicated and caused him to due from his injuries and infections.
Puberty blockers chemically castrate children and as Marci Bowers trans identified surgeon has admitted leaves children Anorgasmic and unable to reach sexual fulfillment as adults.
There are no protected female or lesbian spaces. Homosexuality has been redefined as a genital preference. Autistic people are over represented in the trans population. I have met two trans people through my local autism services and two other trans people I knew displayed autistic traits which I now recognise after my own diagnosis.

This is an existential issue. There is now something like a war (for reality) going on. About preserving the truth and bodily integrity and mass co-oercion to a quasi religious ideology.

Personally I think anyone supporting gender ideology is now participating a crime against humanity. You can try and censor people but gender critical people have their own spaces and spheres of influence now.

I cannot tolerate people lying to my face about reality. I believe in the truth and gender ideology has no truth value. The mass mutilation and sterilisation of vulnerable people via this ideology is a historical significant atrocity.

You can try and live in a "post-truth" reality if you want but I never will.

The tide is turning and people are waking up and fighting back. You cannot put the lid back on the dissent. It is actually a frightening because this is the biggest denial of truth and reality I think has ever happened. It is not a small act to call a man "she" it is a major lie and misogynistic gaslighting that compromises actual woman, their rights, healthcare and boundaries.

This is on of the things I am most passionate about for various reasons but the main one is people lying to my face and trying to make me lie. The lying on Wikipedia. The propaganda and lies from the medical industries.

I disagree with religions but no one is forcing me to partake in their religious rituals like this or endorse their religious beliefs etc

We've had this discussion before, and it proved impossible to have it in good faith. — fdrake

What do you mean?

I think so. You do get taught about religions for the purposes of normalising them and the people who practice other ones. — fdrake

No. This is about normalising the idea that people can change sex, can be born in the wrong body that there are 100's of valid gender identities.

This is normalising sterilisation of children via puberty blockers and genital mutilation. This is making vulnerable and persuadable children question their own identity and be set on an unnecessary medical pathway. It should absolutely be out of schools.

If trans is taught in schools then so should detrans and the increasing cases of people who regret identifying as the opposite sex and chopped off body parts and did irreversible damage to their body. The increasing number of gay men who due to internalised homophobia chopped their penises off and now regret it.

What exactly are you attempting to normalise? Rejecting biology? Gender religion?

Also you need to explain to young girls why hormonal school boys should be given access to their changing rooms.

The problem with consciousness could be the same problem as "Why does anything exist at all?" Even if you reduce problems to the concept of matter, atoms and space and time etc their basic existence seems to be a mystery. (Why does anything exist at all and have properties and dispositions)

I am not sure that emergent properties are explained. Evolution seems to be an attempt of trying to explain human biology and biology per se as a series of emergent events leading to ever sophisticated mechanisms and the idea seems to be that if you have millions of years of random events something like the human brain will eventually emerge.

A bit like The Infinite monkey theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare"

1). Let's assume that reality is ordered - consistent. Governed by laws and constants. (objective).

2). Lets also assume that the mind can perceive reality, receive data or input from it and store that data. — Benj96

What does reality being "ordered" mean? Is this order inherent in everything we perceive or are you referring to the hypothesised laws of physics including the quantum world?

We know the human body is hugely complex with a lot of unknowns and a lot of mechanisms and systems hidden to the naked eye.

We don't perceive cells, mitochondria and DNA these are the product of theories and enhancing our perception with instruments like microscopes but also a having to apply theories to interpret the findings caught by our instruments. We seem to have to interpret sense data to utilise it.

I would say that what we perceive as reality with our basic senses is not the kind of data on which to build a sophisticated world model (even though I believe perceptions are truthful and carry data).

So I think we are faced with a project of combining everyday perceptions with theories in an ongoing revisionary dynamic. I do not think we can draw any solid conclusions about how to behave from immediate sense data without our presumptions and subjectivity.

A wild animal is probably better than us at surviving based on unsophisticated accurate statistic reactions to sensory data with the sole goal of survival not the kind of complex human goals we have like deciding what career path to take or the meaning of life.caused by too much reality rather than too little.

mental illness could be

Unless I have misread this this seems inherently problematic.

You are going to be diagnosing mental disorders based on how closely someone's words or behaviour align to what you perceive to be an objective external world.

This is how they pathologized a lot of healthy people in the past who did not share other people's attitudes and what they still do in some countries.

Also people have changed our view the the external world by perceiving it or contextualising it differently.

If there was only one mental healthy way to view reality we would never make progress.

I view the external word as evidence but not evidence that is open to theories and and interpretation.

Depressive realism is a theory people who posit what you do don't like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Here it says:
"Some have argued that the evidence is not more conclusive because no standard for reality exists, the diagnoses are dubious, and the results may not apply to the real world"

And there you have the problem. It is probably best not to diagnose mental disorders based on how much someone fits into a norm but looking for causes of the distressing dysfunctional symptoms.

I don't think consciousness being fundamental or emergent works but I can't over another view point.

It seems like it emerges from the brain without us having any kind of clear causal picture.

But it seems to me like we need a new paradigm not based on any of our current methodologies or paradigms.