On the Hunt with the Goddess Diana

As I was thinking about a response to Diana’s comment on yesterday’s post I realized I wanted to say too much and so here’s the reply. But firstly I need to apologize to her for my seemingly obsessive and compulsive need to generate a catchy title. Sometimes they work; sometimes they don’t.

Diana asked some very pertinent questions and here’s the comment in full

This is the part I wrestle with:

"Medical transitioning, and legal recognition, might be the best we can currently do to alleviate the suffering and to allow those afflicted to live a happier and more fulfilled life." [My words from yesterday’s post]

Probably because I haven't done enough research to know (a) whether or not it's true-- whether in the aggregate this path alleviates more suffering than it causes, and (b) whether allowing this-- even if we can prove that it meets the qualifications of (a)-- opens a societal and cultural Pandora's box that leads to more suffering and agonizing (especially when it comes to children) over whether the way one feels or experiences life is in sync with one's physical being (as you note-- and it's hard to say this without seeming insensitive to those with serious dysphoria, but necessary to say for all the others with normal and appropriate levels of mirror avoidance-- it seldom is)

I want to start off in a decidedly odd place, but bear with me. There is, I hope, a point to it.

When I was younger I was interested in the whole issue of exorcism. I read books written by religious people and also by psychologists on the issue. Some of the anecdotes described by the religious were fascinating, but so too were the case studies mentioned by the psychologists.

Having a vicar in the extended family, the vicar briefly mentioned in yesterday’s post, turned out to be quite useful. I asked him for his thoughts. He’d never done an ‘exorcism’ and, as far as I know, still hasn’t. You do need a calling, special training, and authority to go down that particular route. He has, however, performed several ‘blessings’ on people’s houses.

Basically, some parishioners occasionally get a bit spooked and imagine all sorts of terrible supernatural things happening in their homes and so in he goes to mumble a few magic words and splash a bit of water about and wave some incense (or whatever form of religious talisman is required). The point, as he said, wasn’t that any of this stuff ‘worked’ to drive out the supposedly evil spirits, it was to allay the distress and suffering of those who had got themselves into a state.

A kind of religious placebo effect, then.

I don’t mean to denigrate the vic here. He didn’t do this half-heartedly. Any ‘blessing’ was genuine, and real prayers and honest intent were behind it. He genuinely believed he was calling on the Grace of God to help these people. But he was under no illusion that it was anything other than a kind of ‘placebo’, as far as getting rid of the demonic nasties that were allegedly causing the trouble. He believed in the healing power of God, but not so much in the supernatural nasties, if that makes sense.

Except for one incident he recounted. I have no reason to doubt him. He’s a very level-headed, intelligent, and thoroughly decent person and it was very clear in the context of the lengthy and serious discussions we had that he wasn’t just winding me up. He described one incident that really scared him and that he couldn’t explain.

He was called round to a house where the occupants were terrified. It seemed to be emanating from one particular room they were all frightened to go into. Par for the course, he thought. Just do the usual. He entered the room in question prepared to go through the whole rigmarole of blessing. As I’ve said above, his intent was genuine, the blessing was genuine, his desire to allay suffering was genuine - he just didn’t think he was really banishing evil spirits.

As he entered the room he immediately knew something was ‘off’. It was freezing and he felt nauseous and afraid. Soldiering on, the blessing was begun. As he started, the ornaments on the sideboard in the room started to explode one by one, in order.

A pant-staining moment, if ever there was one.

The rational part of me wants to say that the parishioners were pulling a prank - and rigged everything up. It seems the most plausible explanation, but to what end? I asked the vicar about this and he didn’t seem to think this made sense, given the parishioners that he knew well.

A fascinating anecdote that has stayed with me, and the vic, for many years. The good news is that the ‘blessing’ seemed to work and the parishioners could go back to living peacefully and without fear in their house.

Apart from the goose bumps, the vic’s whole purpose in telling me this was to lead into a book he gave me to read whilst I was staying there. I think the book’s title was The Ministry of Deliverance and was written by a Church of England official exorcist. I was told it wasn’t available for the general public at the time.

The official exorcist cut through the crap and basically said that as soon as you start focusing on what it all might ‘mean’, whether there really were supernatural goblins and ghoulies lurking, you’ve lost it. He said the focus is always, always, on delivering people from their suffering - and the exact nature and cause of that suffering were a long way down the list of concerns.

There are some, but only some, parallels here with the trans issue (and for the hard of thinking, no, I’m really, really, not trying to suggest trans individuals are ‘possessed’ here - just in case some mashed turnip brain gets the wrong idea). The point is that we don’t really know what causes the suffering for a trans individual. Is it some biological misfiring? Is it a mental health issue? Is it some form of social conditioning? Some mix of these or other factors? Dunno. But we do know that some people really do suffer from a mismatch between their inner perceptions and their ‘biology’, for want of a better word.

Obviously we want to alleviate suffering (I hope). It might be a wonderful thing to know the causes of that suffering because it would give us a better idea of how to go about helping, but what do we do when we don’t really know what’s, ultimately, going on? The focus, surely, has to be on the individual and their suffering?

There is no doubt that many people who have undergone a transition have found some measure of peace and happiness as a result. That has to be a good thing, surely? We might not understand why it happened, or why the transition ‘worked’, but we can see the results and can be, I hope, pleased for the individual concerned that their suffering has been relieved, that they have been ‘delivered’ from it.

Doesn’t that all sound rather lovely?

Enter Diana with her very pertinent questions.

Sure, we may be helping some, but overall are we causing more harm than good?

It is, perhaps, the central question of the decade so far. We entered into mass health interventions - lockdowns, distancing, masks, sanitizers, screens and vaccinations without any firm idea that what we were doing was coming out on the positive side of the cost/benefit equation.

According to the gender activists, ‘de-transitioning’ or transition regret is very rare. However, I suspect they are viewing this through Pfizer-tinted glasses - a special kind of viewer that allows one to re-categorize thousands and thousands of instances as ‘rare’.

And here’s the rub. If de-transitioning, or transition regret, is not as rare as the activists claim, then we need to re-think the whole approach. For one thing, it underlines the fact that we don’t properly understand what’s going on - not that this needed to be underlined. Until we can reliably predict who will benefit, and who will not, from transition we cannot claim any real understanding at all - and even then we might only find a correlator, rather than an explanation.

What this says to me is that the more cautious approach that used to be adopted prior to the gender explosion of the last decade was the correct one, given our current state of understanding.

Today’s approach is anything but cautious. It’s full-on “this person is trans because they say they are - now just fuck off with your bigoted questions”. On the one hand, the de-stigmatization of trans individuals has to be a good thing. That’s a definite plus. But where’s the line between de-stigmatization and promotion?

And here’s where Diana’s 2nd question kicks in.

Do we really properly understand the consequences of a radical re-shaping of society’s attitudes to sex and gender, particularly when it comes to children?

It seems to me that, just like we did with covid, we’re indulging in a society-wide experiment. There’s no long-term safety data, to put it mildly. Self-affirmation and self-identity are two experimental techniques and, like the various covid measures, we are being bullied into believing they are the “science” and will bring about a good outcome.

But we’re going full-steam ahead and caution be damned. Caution, it seems, is only appropriate when you’re going to kill Granny, but not for anything else. We have no idea what exposure to continual gender-questioning, gender-expression, and adult ideas surrounding sex and gender will do to developing young minds. The thinking is that it will lead to greater tolerance, more freedom to be who you feel you are ‘inside’, and less discrimination. Maybe it will turn out to be so - and these are not bad goals in general.

But there are other goals too - and focusing on oneself too much is not generally the best way to lead a happy, rich and fulfilled life. Things like family, friends, community and your responsibilities towards this wider community are, for most, more important than endless self-speculation about who you really ‘are’ inside.

Tying with Sam Vimes for my favourite character in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series is the witch Granny Weatherwax. It was said of her that she didn’t understand this modern urge to “find yourself” because she always knew right where she was.

One of the problems with modern gender ideology is its focus on looking inwards rather than outwards. It places the individual at the centre of a universe which revolves around them and their special ‘nature’. Furthermore, it demands that the rest of the universe recognize and affirm this special nature.

Downgrading the issue of trans to something that is essentially cosplay is, perhaps, demeaning to those who’ve had to struggle and suffer to finally become the person they wanted to be. Yet this is the direction that is being pushed by the gender activists. Today, being ‘trans’ is cool and trendy, a way of being different and getting lots of special attention and praise. Kids can ‘try it on’ like a costume, with so-called social transitioning. And yet Diana’s questions need to be asked here too. Do we really know what harm we might be doing by this? A psychologist has written a powerful piece about this where the rather pertinent observation is made that a childhood is not reversible.

I hope you can tell that I take the issue of ‘trans’ seriously. There are real people, some of my readers, who have struggled and have no doubt faced many fearful and pain-filled days on their journey to be happy and to be at peace with themselves. It’s a real issue that affects real people and they need our help, not our condemnation.

But please, someone, anyone, tell me how I am to take an individual who describes themselves to be of a ‘gaseous’ gender quite as seriously? If you’re so-called genderfluid, you could be a ‘man’ one day and a ‘woman’ the next - and I’m supposed to take this seriously too? Technically, these genderfluid individuals might be said to ‘transition’ on a daily basis.

If only it were that easy - and we have no idea of the damage we’re causing by pretending that it really is that easy.

Diana’s arrows go to the heart of the matter.

---