[PeterisP]

Thing is, there's no symmetry here.

If some people genuinely have problems and some genuinely don't, then only common conclusion is that the problems do exist (for some) and so solutions to them are required, so the experiences of the people who had problems can't be trivialized (because that experience is relevant for solving the problem even if they're in the minority) and the experiences of the people who didn't have a problem should be trivialized unless there's a good argument that those experiences almost universal and the problem actually is not real.

[Crabber]

>If some people genuinely have problems and some genuinely don't

You only gather data to reach that conclusion by letting both sides talk about their experiences, not by telling one side "you're rude, shut up and listen more".

[PeterisP]

No, the conclusion that some people genuinely have problems can be reached without listening to the experiences of those who don't have problems, the testimony of the people with problems is fully sufficient for that conclusion.

As I explained above, even if some people genuinely don't have those problems, that is simply irrelevant if others do have them.

[Crabber]

No, that would lead you to conclude that all people have problems