I guess I find that to be pretty much the same issue. Whether something is or is not helpful or effective for you now is entirely dependent on the actual facts. Only what the facts are is being run through those same set of epistemic biases. If your family is in fact supportive, then taking responsibility for your part of the relationship and not letting your fears get in the way is helpful. If your family is in fact covertly abusive, those same behaviors are dangerous. If your family is still involved in your life, as mine was for most of this, getting that right is pretty important.

Some of this was based on my research on criticisms of CBT from various minority group standpoints. Most therapists are white, middle class, and heterosexual - including the people who write therapy textbooks. The criticism is that this has often led to therapists misidentifying thinking and behaviors that are a protective response for people who experience discrimination. The therapist doesn't experience that sort of discrimination and as such is liable to attribute the client's awareness of it (especially in covert forms) to the client's feelings, rather than seeing it as a fact of life that the client has to work around.

Personally, I'm less concerned about validation/invalidation on an emotional level here. What I'm concerned about is that CBT and the derivative forms (DBT, CPT, etc.) don't give sufficient consideration to distortions in evidence and rational evaluation. This means it's too easy for a given behavior to appear to be irrational or unhelpful simply because, for some reason, the reality of the client's life appears to the therapist, and perhaps even to the client, to be other than it actually is.