Snippet: Speaking of Being on the Wrong Side of History
Snip·pet | ˈsnipit | noun a small piece or brief extract.
This is a follow-up to my last snippet where I referenced this quote, not remembering where I had read it.
It’s Carl R. Trueman in an article for First Things. It’s powerful and it would be very tempting to use it as a weapon in culture warfare, so I’ll offer some thoughts on that after the snippet.
“We have had plagues of body dysmorphia before, most notoriously the anorexia and bulimia scourges of the late twentieth century. The difference is that those dysmorphias were seen for what they are: harmful conditions whose victims need love and care. Doctors and politicians worked hard to help the victims and enable them to flourish. Today, the latest form of body dysmorphia—rapid-onset gender dysphoria—is fueled by extremely wealthy lobby groups with a vested interest in identity politics. Backed by a medical establishment for whom ethics is little more than a supine acceptance of technological possibilities, and enabled by a political class that lacks a moral backbone, these groups are shaping the country’s pediatric care. And the cost will be catastrophically high.
“Bethany Mandel recently described the response to the current trans confusion among children as ‘a human rights violation. We have troubled kids, whom we are then sterilizing. You don’t get more dystopian than that.’ Indeed. My prediction is that two hundred years from now, our age will be judged as monstrous for engaging in the most brutal, government-supported mass mutilation and sterilization of confused children ever witnessed. It will be shameful.”
It’s a brutal indictment. I agree with the basic ideas. But I wish he had stated it differently. I think he may have violated some of his own principles in this piece.
But please don’t let my critique of how he says it detract from some of the realities he’s highlighting or the sense of righteous indignation and the very real injustice he’s addressing.
Last year I read Trueman’s magnum opus, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.
It’s an amazing book where he seeks to trace the history of what he calls the triumph of the modern self in a way that those who disagreed with his conclusions would at least agree that he had traced the line of thought accurately and fairly. In other words, they wouldn’t feel caricatured or demonized or mischaracterized. I think he succeeded. It’s a great and thoughtful book.
In this article, he makes sweeping generalizations, and I’m certain that most who disagree with him would vehemently disagree in their heart of hearts with his characterization of their motives. His approach is neither winsome nor very unlikely to persuade anyone who disagrees with him.
What does this accomplish? To some degree, for those who already agree with him, it elicits a response of horror and revulsion that might get us to do something to address this injustice. And if we’re convinced that going to war on cultural issues is the most just and loving approach to issues like this, it’s a call to arms. Maybe this kind of verbal punch in the mouth is exactly what’s needed.
So I truly admit I would be wrong, but I’m afraid this kind of rhetoric will only make things worse in our present cultural context. And it won’t accomplish much of lasting significance.
Yet, I do believe that it needs to be said.
So how might it be said in a way that calls for acts of justice on our part but may be more influential and persuasive in the public square?
For one thing, I think he could have raised some of his points as questions that invite people who might disagree with him to think instead of simply going on the defensive. For example, he could have said, “How might the plagues of body dysphoria for the last part of the twentieth-century offer insight into the unprecedented rise of rapid-onset gender dysphoria among girls today?”
And how about less sweeping generalizations by writing, “For too many in the medical establishment it seems that ethics is little more than a supine acceptance of technological possibilities.”
Why “soften” something that confronts evil?
Because it’s not softening. It’s more accurate (i.e., truthful), and it’s a more humble and hopeful approach.
I believe Trueman’s prediction is correct, and I share his heart on this matter. The way he frames the issue is brilliant.
I’d love to see him stick to his approach in the Triumph book, modeling that kind of engagement for the rest of us with his powerful intellect and his flair for words. I certainly need that kind of modeling because I often violate what I’m calling him to do.
Photo by Rajesh Rajput on Unsplash
