I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.
Well, the fact is that most people use the tropical zodiac for a reason. If you're gonna be so hard on choosing the exact constellation that's rising in your birth, then use Ophiucus as your rising sign, because it's the actual constellation. The zodiac we use is there for a reason, it's based on symbolism and seasons, like most of the techniques used in astrology.
That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.
Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.
Heliacal Phenomina
Page 10-11 of Primer
Chaldean Forum
There's really no point in trying to be more exact or real in using the actual position of the constellations when pretty much all of astrology is based upon the symbolism and symmetry of things. I don't know if you did know this, but the aspects, rulerships, triplicities, symbols for the planets, order, elements, etc. are all based on symbolical meaning, not exact facts.
All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.
I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.
Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.
For example, trines are said to be harmonious because they represent the triangle, a figure that's regarded as spiritual and harmonious. And, going even beyond the basic structure of astrology, there's a lot of empirical research being done on astrology and most of it is done using the tropical zodiac. In personal experience I've seen vedic to fail a lot more times than tropical. I've asked many people about their charts in vedic and they just don't see it. If you use vedic as a result of opinion then you're free to do it, but it's a couple of testimonies against the much more vast and common use of the tropical zodiac.
Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.
As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.
I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.
There are also people who like to use the argument of "Vedic and Tropical are both correct because astrology is so mysterious and magical that in both systems, natal charts describe the same person" - Yeah, that's probably the weakest argument you can come up with. If you firmly believe this is the case then you firmly believe astrology is false.
Do you have any idea how many people justify any form of astrology with the exact same argument? There is a form of astrology where the tropical zodiac and the fixed stars are both taken into account. The website is called Dark Side Astrology. Take it for what it's worth.
If things do "match up" even after changing the signs it's because your mind is telling you so, trying to find connections and patterns, a job at which our minds are really good at.It's like denying confirmation bias .
Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.