Is there a real world example of how that plays out? I sort of think I know where you're getting at but it's still unclear to me. What does "values" mean? What are they? Or lets say I value knowledge above most things because it's just what I think is important. How would a Fe user validate that value? Also, how do they gauge it by comparing to something outside the self? For example, if let's say the Fi user thinks that transgender people should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else, it's because that's what they feel is right. If a Fe user feels the same way, how might they have gone about validating it? Is it with what their friends/family/society/group/significant other thinks or something else? How does Fe vs. Fi in the contextual way work? I mean like if you have an example with any specific values that people hold. It makes it slightly easier to grasp.
Value means what basic worth (good, bad, necessary, unimportant, etc - the nuances are endless) or moral judgment you assign to things. It can be small personal preferences (ie "I enjoy horror movies & see it as harmless entertainment") or far more complex moral principles.
In the wider social context - shaming is a big tactic. People who don't hold the same value may be painted as immoral or rude or basically assigned a negative value. This often happens as a subtle cultural shift - normalizing stuff over time. A lot of this is perception as much as Feeling, because functions don't exist in a vacuum.
They may also "recruit" - actively seek to promote their values. Fi types tend to embody/set an example, Fe tends to evangelize more. They can often prepackage values - if you are a "good person" (or insert some positive value here), then it means you uphold/support/accept X, Y and Z. If you only accept X & Y, then to be deemed a "good person", you may start to accept Z too.
So along with your example - people who don't feel transgender choices are moral may be painted as "transphobic" or given some other negative value, thus attempting to socially shame them and motivate them to change their belief.
I think a Fi type (not
user - you don't
use them, you ARE them; they are
ego types, aka ways of identifying and interpreting reality) would likely come to a conclusion based on a web of many conceptual value premises (I think of these more like life themes, such as "authenticity" or "peace" or "respect") which leads them to conclude that X stance is the best to meeting these fundamentals. This web of their has been formed and refined over time, by examining their internal experience (and others' via empathy) to conclude what is necessary, good, etc, for the human condition. Fi types often try to appeal to this within others - to get them to empathize with someone else and see life through their experience, so that people can revise their values to recognize a broader range of human experience. This often leads to suggesting tolerance, not necessarily agreement.
A Fe type may have a web of personal values too, but they tend to be more real-time, result-oriented; a certain way of being creates relationships and atmospheres that meet needs of the human condition. These needs are often taught or observed as a part of everyday life; extroverted types tend to take for granted things (ie human needs) as objective realities and spend less time working out a justification, but perhaps more energy in pursuit of them or acting inline with them. For Fe, there is also more focus on the "space between people" and how we all connect and relate. Fe types often try to appeal to the way people feel connected - is there good feeling between us so we can come to a consensus and meet our needs collectively? They often want more cohesive agreement over mere tolerance (and there is a truth that total tolerance is way too idealistic at times).
I am sorry my examples are still vague. I am not great with concrete examples. Metaphor and abstract illustrations are more my forte.
These are very general and not suggesting there is a rigid mental construct for each type and no crossover in approaches to value concepts. Both are a preference for Feeling, after all.
Would there be a more specific example of a time where a Fe user would adjust to a specific consensus? How will that create accord? Sorry, I'm a bit slow with understanding descriptions and terms. I find that a real life example helps me understand it a little better. Thank you for the reply
The above recruiting scenario - they may
adapt to keep their own status of "good person", the definition of which has just
shifted culturally.
Fe is more of a skill than it is necessarily a specific moral view. 
Maybe turn feelings into logical postulates, and build with those instead. Dissect value judgements truthfully and impartially down to their mechanics, beyond the context of yourself. Try considering them in the context of others. Should put you smack dab in the middle of Fe territory.
I'm socially awkward so it's a bit hard for me to strike up a conversation that lasts longer than 3 seconds.
