Why I'm looking for a new vet

When consulting with people for medical advice (I emphasise medical because I am a biologist, which affects the story in ways that will become clear), I find myself in a mental state that I'm going to call "scientific entitlement." I could even use the phrase "scientific privilege" without stretching the bounds too much.

My reasoning is this: medical personnel have to simplify things in order to communicate with patients and patient families. That's just how it is. Biology is amazingly complex - I usually describe the study itself as the imposition of order on chaos (although more specifically I'm referring to taxonomy when I use that phrase). You do need background information to understand what's going on.

Really good medical personnel will take the time to use metaphors, draw diagrams and so forth, and make sure that patients have as much relevant information as they can be expected to usefully process. I tend not to tolerate anything less than this effort. I want to be involved in a dialogue for any relevant medical care.

Here's where my entitlement/privilege comes in: while I'm not a medical researcher (or, as will become relevant below, a vet), I do have a higher capacity to usefully process this information than the general layperson. I can process more of it, at a deeper level. In fact, due to the level of my biological knowledge, I can actually parse a limited (very limited) subsection of the primary scientific literature. I may not evaluate the quality of studies to the same standards, as I really am not an expert.

Here's where another valuable cliche enters the scene: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If I only know enough to draw broad conclusions, without a good grasp of subtlety, I'm going to miss the nuance of the situation, and come to the wrong conclusion. A really blunt example is how so many people think that rising levels of CO2 will be good for the environment because "it helps trees breathe." This completely overlooks the vast complexity of climatic systems, ecology, botany and so on and so forth. It comes to an entirely erroneous conclusion and the consequences (should this person be in a position of power) could contribute to catastrophe.

So! Because I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I have a strong tendency to trust experts in their field to parse information accurately. Other people have to trust me for information (obviously not medical information, and the stakes are somewhat lower, but I can't explain what I do from first principles every time someone asks me a question). I know how much work and study is involved in becoming useful in a lot of these fields - it's vast. It's not something I can reach with just a little cross-disciplinary reading, and it would be exceptionally arrogant of me to think that I could.

That trust there is important to me. However, we're back to scientific entitlement again: I want a basic mechanistic understanding of what's going on. I am never going to accept "Because I said so." I will accept "A whole whackload of peer-reviewed studies have shown..." and/or a list of pros and cons. I do not mean to disrespect experts in their field. I just have a high level of respect for my own independence and decision-making capacity. If someone else asks me why I have taken a particular course of action, I'm not going to just say, "Because the doctor thought it was a good idea." Unless I am very tired, that is.

Understanding situations - even in the ballpark way that a good medical expert can enable for a person outside that field - makes me feel safe and confident.

That's why I got very angry with the surgeon at the Royal Melbourne who wanted to perform a procedure on me with a local anaesthetic when I knew from fifteen years experience with the condition that the local would not be very effective. He said, "You won't feel a thing." This was a lie. It was an outright freaking lie to get me to cooperate and make their life easier. It also conflicted with what four other medical staff had said to me in the previous 24 hours.

And - finally we get to the point - it's why I am very, very angry with our vet (the older one. The younger one is alright so far).

I take veterinary care very seriously. I am deeply invested in the welfare of my puppy. Yesterday, we took little (22kg) Amos to the vet for what turned out to be gastritis from eating rocks (he's very intelligent. Really. Eating rocks. Hell). While I was there, I took the opportunity to ask various questions (His food is really expensive, we'll keep him on it if you think it's a good idea, but what other options would be acceptable once this critical growth period has passed?, also, Are his teeth coming in okay and when will he finish teething?).

I asked one other question - to be blunt, I asked if his testes were descending okay. He's at the stage where they are starting to form as little lumps, and I know that it's possible for hernias to happen in dogs (actually, in all mammals, thanks to my friend Josie for the tale of her poor little guinea pig who decided to keep his intestines in his scrotum, just for shits and giggles apparently. He's fine by the way). I don't know how that system is supposed to work as male pups grow up, so I asked.

She said he was fine - absolutely normal - and then asked the question, "Are you going to desex him?"

Put on your controversy hats, people.

I do not - at this point - plan to desex my dog.

I do not have a moral objection to it. I don't think it's cruel. I don't feel it somehow makes him less cool or macho. I don't begrudge the money for the operation (although putting him under a general makes me nervous, but I realise that is probably slightly irrational).

In fact, I think that male* desexing is a good tool for population control with the following caveats:

1) in cats
2) in dogs that roam
3) when owners are not able to keep their dogs inside
4) in the case of medical need
5) in smaller dogs where the negatives (aha, we shall see presently) are less apparent
6) when, for whatever reasons, the benefits outweigh the risks

(*just so you know: I refer to male desexing for specific reasons. It is a much less invasive procedure than female desexing, which appears to be good thing to do in some cases for health reasons - I have done much less research on this - and female desexing of dogs that do not roam is less of an issue of population control. The issues are not equivalent for both sexes. There's an interesting aside to this I'll mention later)

Right. So now that we've established I'm not taking this stance for stupid emotional reasons, let's look at why I am.

I was initially planning to snip the boy at six months, which is the standard (in Australia. This is relevant, by the way). The benefits of de-sexing one's male dog are generally supplied to us, the general, non-veterinary public, as a scientific consensus - much in the same way as the benefits of vaccination, the reality of global warming, and the link between smoking and lung cancer are supplied as scientific consensus. As it happens, I know what scientific consensus looks like, and these latter three items qualify.

Desexing your male dog as beneficial? Not so much. Especially not in the last decade, when a number of studies - largely observational and epidemiological, admittedly, but applied with a great deal of statistical rigour - have examined the long-term and short-term risks and benefits of a gonadectomy.

I was particularly concerned by a paper that came to my attention showing a ridiculously strong link between early desexing in Rottweilers and the development of osteosarcoma. In this case, they define early as "less than one year of age." Now, Rottweilers were the target breed for the study because they already have a genetic predisposition to osteosarcoma. The sample size was fairly good, although I am going to have to look into appropriate sample sizes for epidemiological studies (it's not my area, and standards vary - epidemiological studies tend to provide quite noisy data, so you need higher sample sizes. It's just under 700 animals, though, which sounds good to me, particularly with such a strong effect).

It turned out that rotties that were desexed were nearly four times more likely to develop osteosarcoma; this is suggested to be related to the link between sex hormones and bone deposition. Let me repeat: they were four times more likely to develop a condition that they already prone to develop.

For anyone who doesn't know - Amos, the canine apple of my dog-loving eye, is a Rottweiler. He's about five months of age and is at this moment developing beautifully.

I did look for other studies that criticised this one. I have so far found nothing conflicting with this result. In fact, a subsequent epidemiological study included a number of other breeds and found that the risk factor for osteosarcoma was related to (1) size and (2) neuter status. Large dogs are more likely to develop osteosarcoma. Large, desexed dogs are way more likely to develop osteosarcoma.

The potential confounding factor is this: maybe owners that are "responsible enough" to desex their dogs and more likely to follow up and biopsy their sick dogs. I think this could be controlled for by look at well-loved breeding line dogs - obviously not desexed, but still cared for.

So, I raised this point with the vet.

"Rubbish!" she said. "It's absolute rubbish. How many times can I say it? You can't just read websites, you have to go to the actual study."

I explained that I had, and that I was actually a PhD geneticist, so I did go and read the articles.

Her comeback? "I've operated on three dogs with osteosarcoma that were entire [not desexed]."

Alright. So first you assume I haven't done my research - fair enough, it may be not be that common - and then you give me anecdotal evidence.

That's like me saying "I know three old women who chain smoked every day of their adult lives and lived to be ninety-six with no sign of lung cancer." In no way does that mean there is no link between smoking and lung cancer. It's not a predictive model - it's a risk ratio. I know that, and she knows that (and if she doesn't, she shouldn't be a vet).

I said I wanted him to reach his full growth. She replied - and be prepared - that sex hormones were only for sex and reproduction, and had nothing to do with growth (or bone deposition).

Uh-huh. Soooo. Why are women at higher risk of osteoporosis after menopause? Why are women who started their menstruation very late at even greater risk of osteoporosis after menopause? Lower exposure to oestrogen = increased risk. Is the exact mechanism understood? I don't believe so. It's probably far more complex than that; correlation does not equal cause.

Why are desexed male dogs generally smaller and more slender than entire male dogs, regardless of breed? I know Rottweiler breeders who point out that desexed rotties look much more like bitches, which is not unexpected, and is a function of growth.

Either she's lying to me, or she's stupid.

Actually, that's harsh: what I suspect is that she is trying to simplify. The thing is that every hormone in your body probably has multiple functions and cascade effects. It is nowhere as simple as this "this hormone does this"; it has to be explained that way to an extent for understanding, but to present it as convincing truth is insulting (I am admittedly a population geneticist, but I have been to enough talks on gene expression to understand how amazingly complex and multifaceted any single gene product or biochemical pathway can be).

It also does nothing to alleviate my concerns. If she is trying to convince me to do something I am not inclined to do, that relies on trust. She has repeatedly damaged that trust already by using crap tactics to try and convince me.

If she had a problem with the basic hypothesis - that sex hormones are necessary for adequate bone deposition and that in larger dogs with dense bones the absence of those sex hormones can lead to bone problems - she should have explained why. And I don't care if she thinks she's too busy (the clinic was not busy); I don't care if she thinks it's beneath her. I've raised a concern.

Don't dismiss my concerns. Rebut them effectively.

But it gets worse, gentle reader. I stand my ground.

"Well, I just hope it doesn't backfire," she snaps. "Because I'm the one who's going to have to euthanase him when he bites someone from frustration."

Oh, you did not just do that. She's gone from "trusted expert" to "non-trusted expert" to "manipulative tool" in about five minutes of conversation.

Firstly, you've just implied that I can't adequately train my dog to not bite people unless we cut his balls off. Second, you've now said that you're going to have to kill my dog. And third, you've now implied that killing my dog is going to be most terrible for you. Look, I understand that euthanasing animals must be terribly difficult. I would find it heartbreaking. But I think it might be a tad worse for the owner who loves the animal. I think that they are the ones who will be mourning and grieving. I think that it's an unpleasant and upsetting part of your job. It's not comparable.

At this point I am distinctly less friendly. I have now moved on to explain that we have had three non-desexed Rottweilers and none of them bit anyone (this is not strictly true. Baron once bit my cousin Andrew on the backside under extreme stress and weird conditions. Andrew behaved in a way around the dog that he had been repeatedly told not to, and my Dad had a broken leg and was vulnerable which would have put Baron on edge. Baron thought he'd caught the burglar - he'd done Schutzhund training and had been taught that this was how burglars behave - and was very pleased with himself. He did what he was trained to do and I don't consider the example applicable to the discussion, although I disclose it in the interests of honesty).

The vet was visibly shocked by this report (I am shocked that she was shocked. What the hell do people do with their dogs? Don't they train them or socialise them? There is no way she should be expecting to euthanase a non-desexed dog of any breed on spec) and said, "Fine, I'll change my mind." I said, "Don't change your mind because of that. That's three data points."

And here we get to the nub of the matter: vets, like doctors, have an agenda of public health. That is, I've concluded, their primary goal. For that reason, they must assume - politely - that people are irresponsible, absent-minded and potentially a bit useless (unless demonstrated otherwise, please?).

A vet for this reason probably has to assume that the owner of a large, territorial male Rottweiler...

1) will not train their dog properly (so angry. We work so hard on this, and I do so much research, and we put our money where our mouth is twice a week, and I'm paying $120 to go to a seminar to improve my training skills because I think this is so important)

2) will not keep their dog restrained, which will result in aggression, and unplanned puppies (also angry. We plan to spend some extensive time and money reinforcing the fencing around our property because if my Rottie gets out, I'm going to have bigger concerns than whether or not he's located a convenient bitch in heat and produces unplanned puppies).

I'm not saying that, at the core of it, shit doesn't happen. Shit does happen. The bumper sticker would not fare so well otherwise. You can train a dog to near-perfection and they can still crack it in a particular situation. But desexing my dog is not guaranteed to help this.

Believe it or not, the jury is actually still out on whether desexing reliably reduces aggressive behaviour. I have read studies that show that it does, and studies that show it does not affect the behaviour, and studies that show the reverse trend (an increased risk factor for desexed male dogs to be aggressive). I have also noticed a fairly consistent trend that desexed female dogs are more aggressive on the whole than entire female dogs - not to the extent where I'd refuse to desex a bitch if I thought it necessary for other reasons, but it's worthy of consideration in the overall equation.

The fact is that I don't think this vet, who may well be quite busy, is keeping up with the research. I feel that she is lazily toeing a party line. I think that during the consultation I made it pretty clear that I love my dog, that I am a responsible owner, and that I consider research and evidence to be important in making decisions about his welfare. I don't think I deserved the assumptions shown above - initially, fine, because she's never met me, but five minutes into the conversation we should have worked out where I stood on the matter.

Maybe she's just prejudiced against people who like Rottweilers? That would be odd in a vet, but it does happen in the general public.

Since that interview, I've gone back to Web of Science and dug up more papers on gonadectomy, aggression, and associated health risks. Of course there are ways in which gonadectomy is beneficial for health. These are well publicised. The downsides, though, aren't well publicised. An increased risk of incontinence and lower urinary tract diseases (including cancers), an increased risk of osteosarcoma in larger breeds, and a greatly increased tendency towards cognitive impairment in old age (basically doggy dementia in the twilight years).

Multiple papers advise that, while desexing male cats is basically a clear recommendation, desexing female cats, and female and male dogs, should be weighed up for each individual circumstance, as the risks are going to be different in each case, and the benefits are less clear.

This is not brain surgery. One size does not fit all. Do not tell me that it does, regardless of having to deliver a homogenous public health message.

So now, I'm looking for a vet in my area who will not lie to me, fudge the facts, insult me, or imply that I'm going to have to euthanize my dog.

I'm not saying I'll never desex him. At the moment, the evidence does not recommend it.

On homophobia (or is it?) (Spoiler: yes, it is)

Turns out that this blog is where I like to express what I think of as "the bleedingly obvious" or the occasionally bizarre (I still think that living with animals is bizarre. It's been happening for thousands of years, and I love pets, but it still fascinates me). Generally I'd like to say that most posts won't be as sanctimonious at the last one, but let ye who is not ever self-righteous cast the first stone.

I read all the articles on gay marriage when they appear. Then I read the comments. Then I want to slowly turn and bump my head gently against the nearest surface - gently, because I have a thesis to finish, and bruising my cerebral cortex will not serve me well.

The one I wish to address today is a common objection: "Just because someone is against gay marriage does not make them homophobic! I have gay friends." (paraphrase) Oh, you have gay friends! What a marvellous skyscraper of morality you are! I have gay friends, too! We have so much in common! Oh, wait - except I want my gay friends to enjoy the same rights as my straight friends?

These people who are against any alteration of the status quo are horrified and angry that they are deemed homophobic - "fear of/discomfort with homosexuality" - because they don't like the idea of a same-sex couple getting married. They feel pigeonholed. They feel judged. They feel that "the crazy lefties" are labelling and bullying them (cue the World's Smallest Simple Plan Album Playing Just For YOU*). They appear to think that there is no justification for this idea that an opposition to gay marriage is a sign of homophobia.

I think that perhaps they are not well-blessed with self-awareness or an analytical mindset, so on the off chance that anyone ever reads this without me telling them to do so (ha!), I thought I might lay out the logic that we crazy lefties and/or gay lobbyists (one of my favourite lines: "Oh, I love the gay lobby. It's through the gay front doors and right before you get to the gay elevators.") are following in this case.

1. No argument against gay marriage makes any logical or legal sense. In the interests of not re-hashing in detail, I'll list the arguments of which I am aware, debunk them with my mad debating skills, and move on. This has been done many times before, so in the further interests of not claiming undue credit, I am probably stealing the answers that make sense to me. Then again, logic is provided free of charge. Here we go.

1a. "God doesn't like it." This is the easiest argument in the world to debunk. I'm not going to enter into the religious debate - I lack the wherewithal to do so - so here it is: which God? We live in a secular society. Say it with me: secular. Say it slowly, say it fast, it's a beautiful word. Rolls off the tongue, don't it? I don't have to live according to your religion; the law is on my side. I only have to live according to the law of the land. And the law of the land is (ideally, and nominally) made to fit everyone in that society. We don't make atheists get baptised. We don't make Christians face Mecca to pray. And I'm sorry if those comments are based on religious ignorance - my ignorance in this case is a case in point. Nobody made me go to Bible studies (actually, I didn't have a choice about religious instruction in my second primary school, but that's a separate issue).

Example: I'm married. I'm an adult woman, married to adult man, according to the law of the land. I was married in a civil ceremony in a freaking winery, under a tree. My wedding was not religious. In fact, I've often said that God was not invited, and if He turned up, the deity was gatecrashing. I'm not sure, but I don't think I'm actually married in the eyes of God/Church. As it happens, I still consider myself married. Marriage is not a religious institution; it is a legal condition; legally, it must ignore religion.


Summary: legally, we don't care what God thinks about gay marriage. Legally, we can't care.

1b. "Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's always been that way." No, it hasn't. And how is "It's always been that way" ever an argument for anything? Ideas of marriage change from generation to generation. For thousands of years it's been about the ownership of women and the inheritance of property... in some societies. Same-sex marriage is certainly not unheard of in ancient history.

1c. "I support and defend marriage. I love being married. Allowing same-sex couples to marry debases my marriage." I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Is your marriage so weak that someone you don't know getting married affects it? Honestly, I thought your marriage was about the two of you, but clearly, it's about feeling superior to unmarried people.

1d. "Think of the children!" "Selfish gay parents experimenting on their kids!" Alright, slow down, you're right - homosexual parents should definitely not be experimenting on their children to form X-Files style alien-human hybrids.

Oh. Wait. That's not what you meant.

What you meant was that apparently growing up as the children of a same-sex couple is an experiment. Firstly, marriage isn't about children. This has been debunked so many times, but it keeps popping up: apparently, marriage is about the ability to reproduce, and contribute to the next generation via the binding of gametes. This is arrant nonsense; infertile couples get married all the time. People adopt if they want kids. And furthermore, there are plenty of married, heterosexual couples out there who don't want children, and we let them get married.

Sure, it's nice when kids are raised in stable, loving homes - which homosexual parents are able to provide just as well as heterosexual parents and there are numerous studies showing that there is no psychological disadvantage to these situations. Teh science is against you. I know people who would give their right arm to have been raised by even one sane, present parent of either sex rather than the heterosexual drop-kicks who actually raised them. Heterosexuality is no guarantee of stability. And furthermore, another argument has been raised - I quite like this one - that allowing gay marriages is good for children, because marriage overall increases the stability of a family. It also means that these kids don't have to look at their parents and wonder why, even though there is plenty of love going around, society apparently has decided that the relationship is Just Not Good Enough. No matter how supportive, how loving, how thoughtful, how stable.


1e. "I'm in favour of gay marriage, but why do you need the word marriage?" Why not? Separate isn't equal. If you don't think the word is a big deal, go on, do like your parents taught you - share. Words are a huge deal. We think in language. We debate in language. We justify in language. Language shapes thought, language has impact. Words, in short, matter. You don't gain anything by keeping the word marriage exclusive to a penis-vagina coupling. See (1c).

1f. "Churches will have to perform same-sex marriages which oppose their doctrine!" No, they won't. See Canada.

1g. "I just know it's wrong."

Now we get to the nub of the matter, because so far, none of these other arguments make sense in a secular society. Children will not be threatened (and I'd go so far as to say that if we live in a more egalitarian society, all children will benefit enormously - especially children who grow up to be same-sex attracted and would like to not be bullied, discriminated against, or otherwise abused by society). Status quo is a terrible, terrible argument (see: interracial marriages, women voting, etc. etc.). Religion is an appalling reason to oppose same-sex marriage. If marriage is a religious institution only, I'm not married - and guess what, I take extraordinary exception to that idea. There will be pummelling.

2. "I just know it's wrong." Hon, that's not how morality works. That's not how fairness works. That's not how our society works. We have laws. We have reasons. We generally agree that discrimination is bad. If you have no return argument for any of these debunkings, then your response is instinctive, and inadmissible. Your instinctive response is about your discomfort.

You are, for some reason (probably lack of exposure to the idea that those pesky homosexuals are, in fact, people like you), uncomfortable with the idea of two people of the same sex getting married.

Discomfort. Hrm. With homosexuality.

We do call that homophobia.

-----
*Re: "A Simple Plan" are probably not around any more. Who is the current emo band that would fit in this bracket? I'm getting old, you see.
-----

On fidelity

Every now and again, you come into contact (directly or indirectly) with someone whose world view differs drastically from your own. That's diversity. It's interesting - usually. Occasionally, that difference leaves you sputtering in confusion: "But who does that? Seriously?"

The issue of fidelity in monogamous relationships seems to be one such minefield.

My own approach (which we shall call "A") is: "I am in a monogamous relationship. I will not seek romantic and/or sexual activity with anyone outside of this relationship." This seems fairly straightforward to me (and to Husband, whose initial response to our proposed relationship was, "Monogamy? Well, I'll give it a try..." and it seems to have worked out quite well, seven years later).

However, I have met, encountered, heard-of-in-the-third-person another approach (which we shall call "B"). It is this: "I am in a monogamous relationship. However, everybody cheats. No-one really means it when they say they're monogamous, and no-one really expects me to keep it in my pants. Therefore, it's okay for me to cheat, because everybody does it."

This seems... convoluted. It means that in a conversation with A, B might be thinking, "What a naive person! How dare they judge me for doing what everybody does!" And I can promise you that A is thinking, "My God, you're a freaking tool, aren't you?" as well as, "You did what? Who does that?" (also, I have it on good authority that B likes to say things like, "But s/he meant nothing to me! Therefore it didn't count!")

This is not about people who do fall in love with someone else, or make a poor decision one drunken night, or anything along those lines. It's also not about polygamous relationships, or open relationships, each of which seems to have its own carefully worked out idiosyncratic approach.

My own theory is this. If you're a person who espouses "B", an exclusive monogamous relationship is not for you. Be honest about it, because maybe your partner is an "A"; if they discover your infidelity, the emotional pain you will deal to them is beyond words, and beyond what you half-arsedly try to rationalise with your "everybody else is doing it" justification.

I like "A", for my money; because I say what I mean, and mean what I say. As far as I'm concerned, life is too short and relationships already too complicated for second-guessing what someone really means when they say something. If you're all speaking the same language, say what you mean.

And mean what you say.

On very odd behaviour from medical professionals

So, yesterday an endocrinologist told me that I had no sign of a glucose disorder and was at very low risk. Goodo! Then he weighed and measured me, told me I needed to lose a couple of kilos and 4cms of waist circumference (80cms is apparently "desirable" in women; thought back; yes, that was the phrase). I looked extremely skeptical.

Then he pulled out a "kilo of fat", which broadly looks a bit like a fat, urine-coloured sausage. And told me to lose "one or two" of those.

My response was probably not what he expected. I wasn't angry yet, I was just a little bit weirded out by the strange man with his strange fat. After I failed to react in any way other than, "Huh. ...yeah?" he wrapped it back up in its Gladwrap, put it away with some sheepishness, and continued the consultation as though it had never happened.

Further investigation has yielded two friends who have experienced this treatment.

My initial confusion was this: "I'm not sure how I'm expected to respond, man. You just pulled out a kilo of freaking fat and dumped it in your desk. I think this is a step in a social dance for which I am really not prepared."

(When I spoke to my Mum later, I said, "It would be like if I had a liver in my fridge, and if I had guests over, and I pulled out this liver and went, hey guys, this came from a duck, what do you think?" It's a poor metaphor, because the answer is obviously, "I think it's pate.")

(I now wish I had said to the man, "I think it's pate," for added surrealism)

Asking around, apparently, my response is supposed to be shame. The kilo of fat is supposed to shame me into losing weight. My problem with this is twofold. Firstly, I'm not sure how the kilo of fat is supposed to incite shame of any kind. It's an inanimate entity on a desk. In my body, it's a biological entity. It's storing nutrients should I need them. In and of itself, there's actually nothing wrong with fat. Perhaps we should not forget a generation whose grandmothers try to insult them (shame them) by saying, "My dear, don't you look healthy." (Translation: you're fat)

I lack grandmothers in the extant sense; that's an anecdote I've heard from several female friends whose living grandmothers happen to be on the catty side. Another one said to a friend, perfectly pleasantly, "You're quite skinny. Are you unwell?" This friend is on the narrow side in terms of build. The fact that we couldn't work out whether it was (a) a genuine inquiry based on concern, (b) a compliment or (c) an insult suggests we live in a world that is seriously fucked up.

But I digress. I don't think I can be shamed with a kilo of fat any more than I could be shamed with duck pate, or any internal organ from any animal, human included. (I now wish I had asked what animal had produced the fat, presuming it isn't actually plastic) I simply don't link those kinds of emotions to bodily stuff. I'm not saying I'm beyond body image issues; I have them, and have had them, and was miserable about my supposed fatness all the way through primary school and high school. I feltugly, yes; I didn't feel ashamed about being ugly, though, because it wasn't my fault. I felt crappy that I was unattractive. That's it. I had bigger things to occupy my overactive guilt/shame centers. I had other things going on at home, at school, and so on, that meant feeling ashamed of my body was way down the list.

Note: I draw a line between being ashamed and being self-conscious. They are not the same thing, and this brings us to the next point: the idea of being shamed for being fat, whether you are actually fat or not (as though there is some arbitrary line rather than an n-dimensional continuum of body shapes).

I felt horribly self-conscious in high school, yes. I didn't want people to look at me too much, because I felt ugly. However, I didn't feel as though I had done anything wrong.

This is key.

At what point, in shaming people about being fat, do you say, "Gosh, you have done the wrong thing. I want you to feel bad. Feel bad yet? Right, now that you feel bad, go and do something good for your health."

I know for a fact I am not the only person who sees a disconnect here. I know why I've put on a small amount of weight while writing a thesis. It's because I'm not going to gym, or swimming, or diving, and I'm stressed. I'm not actually eating more junk food than usual, or anything like that, but I'm not doing exercise, and I should be. I should be, because it makes me feel good and it makes me feel alert and excited; I should be, because it makes me strong.

Feeling ashamed, feeling bad about yourself, feeling bad about your body, from my experience, do not make you want to go out and do exercise. In my experience, anecdotally, this feeling makes you want to curl up in bed in a depressive lump. Feeling crappy makes you feel tired, not energised. Not motivated. If at some point a doctor felt the genuine need to tell me to get more exercise, all s/he would have to do is explain, in simple form, the health risks associated with my not doing so. If a doctor felt the need to tell me to change my diet, again, all he or she would have to do is list what I needed and for what reasons.

Then I would respond, not according to shame, but according to freaking common sense.

Instead, what do I get? Gosh, your fat is bad.

Now, these arguments apply to this sort of treatment regardless of your size. I am also deeply concerned because, with a dietician doing a quick back-of-the-envelope BMI calculation and saying I am perfectly fine (although should I even use BMI to prove a point? Maybe not), a jeans size of 12 (Just Jeans), and with a waist-hip ratio of (I just worked it out, from sheer bloody mindedness) 0.78* (which is apparently also fine from my swift googling), and now an endocrinologist saying that I have no sign or indication and am at very low risk for a glucose disorder, he still felt the need to say, "Gosh, your fat is bad."

Look, I'm normal. There are two problems here: the first is with anyone being treated this way, and it involves the paradigm shift as we come to realise that supposedly "excess" weight is not the terrible health threat that we've all been hearing about our whole lives. It is a red herring and an exaggeration. Everything we hear about what obesity costs taxpayers is complete freaking bollocks.

The second problem is that, even for a doctor who does believe that being above a certain weight counts as a significant health risk, he classed a person of my size as having that risk. Nowhere can I find any evidence to support his claims. Mind you, Googling is obviously not on a par with the ridiculous amount of education required to become a specialist in a medical field, but if he's working from a standard, however arbitrary, shouldn't that standard be available somewhere? Just how small do you have to be?

And my next question is, what do they do to underweight people? I have several friends who have had doctors constantly telling them they need to put on weight, that they are too small, that their low BMI is "undesirable" - what's the tactic for them? Do they get shown the kilo of fat and told that, it's not gross, it's awesome, and you need more of it? That's no better, but it does break the logic of assuming that fat is always bad.

I'm still angry.



----
EDIT: realised that being measured around the tummy is not your waist, so I remeasured it myself. WtH ratio is now 0.73...
----

On Religiousnessnessness

Ah, yes, at last - a post I have considered trying to write many times, and I'm not sure how far I'll get with this one. Suffice to say that there is material for a public entry, and material for a locked entry. Public is - naturally - easier, so let's go.

I've been doing a lot of reading of various science blogs lately, and a lot of those link across to various atheism blogs. The idea of these blogs (well, the good ones) is to stimulate discussion (not about whether God exists; if you're on an atheist blog you might well consider that a solved problem) and thought on issues stemming from the problems we face having the church so thoroughly implanted in the state.

Meanwhile, there's the "Mark No Religion On The Australian Census" campaign, with which I thoroughly agree.

Except... there's a problem with that. Not for me; in spite of my wishful leanings, I'm quite comfortable marking "no religion". My problem is that I have this vague sense that everyone should mark "no religion" - even if they are deeply religious - to avoid pigeonholing.

I've known a few people of quiet, unshakeable faith - I can't relate to it - who nevertheless had political views and beliefs more in line with my own, i.e. pro-choice, pro-science, pro-environment, and a wish for a genuinely even-handed society (i.e. please let same-sex couples get married? It will cost you nothing).

The fact is that, to a certain extent, when you tick that "religion" box, either based on faith or based on your sense of cultural identity, you will be pigeonholed. Maybe that's too strong. I don't have a first-hand experience of how that data is used. What I have seen is far right-wing Christians saying, "There are X number of Christians in Australia and WE believe/want/need/demand..."

It seems enormously patronising to say that, if you tick that box, you're saying Jim Wallace of the ACL speaks for you, but I think that's the case. Jim Wallace obviously doesn't speak for you, but savvy manipulators (and just because we don't fall for it doesn't mean other people won't) will use these numbers.

On the other hand, a person could rightly get offended and angry at that assumption. Why should they have to lie about their beliefs? Their religious beliefs do not automatically mean they hold a particular set of political values. Their religion and their politics are two separate things.

And that is exactly the point. It's a problem. I wouldn't blame anyone for being shitty and not wanting to downplay the significance of their own religion in their life, but at the same time, those numbers will be misused by religious people who are arseholes. Just witness the amazing Gumbo impression that Gillard does - an atheist twisting around to placate the religious right.

So - if you're a left-wing person of any religion (I've only mentioned Christianity, as that's the one that seems to get the most political clout here these days) - you're in a conundrum. Do you lie, to try and keep politics and religion separate? Or do you tell the truth, and try in your own way to separate the ridiculous myth that says all people of a particular religion have the same views?

I have no idea. It's a puzzle of an ideal versus the cynical reality.

On the next note, conversions! Reading a lot of these blogs suggests that conversations between atheists and religious types happen quite often. I don't know if I'm particularly non-confrontational (actually, I'm not. Anyone who knows me knows I'm usually delighted to clear the air. On almost anything), or if perhaps I'm just non-confrontational when I know the outcome is guaranteed to be very unpleasant, but I've seen very few of these.

At heart, I'm not really an accomodationist; I do believe it's harmful to believe so fervently something that seems to not be true (or at least there's no supporting evidence, and documentation is really only a small part of the story); I do believe it's harmful to expect other people to live their lives and make their decisions according to your beliefs (in act, it makes me furious); and I absolutely despise the notion that morality comes from some divine aspect, when it should come from reasoning and compassion and society.

And yet, I avoid religious discussions like the plague. I shouldn't. I know and firmly believe that communication is key in all things, but here are a few of the reasons I can't get past it (yes, I'm a pansy):

(1) It's rude. At the base of it all, I know what I think about religions, I know what I think about fundamentalists, although I'm not too fussed by vague spirituality. That communication I mentioned above is based on honesty, and if I'm having a debate on the merits of religion, I am constantly, constantly editing the thought bubble in my head, "You believe what? You must know the implications of that. I know you're not an idiot. You must be a loon." And I'm aware that they may be suppressing a similar bubble. This stilts conversation for me and makes it very uncomfortable. I'm capable of tact, but dishonesty is another matter. I'm very bad at it. In the end, the other person is - unless they're completely non-perceptive - well aware that I think they've short-changed themselves by buying into something like this.

(2) A debate on this issue can't have a good outcome. Here are the possible outcomes:

(2a) I win. This is unlikely. I convince the religious person that their whole belief system is nonsensical. Actually, that's going to be enormously traumatic for them. Maybe they were happy before, and now they're not. I'm an arsehole.

(2b) I lose. Um. I guess this would mean I am converted, but that's never going to happen. Still, being logical, let's assume I go insane and my brain stops working.

(2c) The discussion gets strained and everyone is cross and frustrated with everyone else.

You know what? It's not religion. It's the specifics. I'm fine with people believing in a god or gods. Sure, go nuts. Why not? I haven't completely ruled it out myself in a philosophical sense. It's the details - like heaven and hell, marriage rules, original sin, ideas about sex, and so on and so forth - that drive me nuts.

When I was a child someone tried to explain original sin to me. I thought it was a horrible idea. How was that fair? People now are suffering because of that? Then there was sex. Wait. Lust is a sin? Sex is sinful? Wait a minute. Why would you create people with a whole bunch of urges and then say, "Oh wait, don't have those urges. Naughty, naughty!" Then there's creationism, and I won't get me started except to wonder why you would give a species a big squishy brain and then say, "Oh, don't use THAT thing. It's a place holder for the second heart I never got around to putting in there."

And the problem seems to be that the stage we are at in regard to how we understand the world around us is fundamentally incompatible with mystical explanations.

And yet, in theory I can be perfectly respectful of someone else's beliefs and lifestyle. If it involves minor changes to my behaviour (not swearing, etc.), whatever, it's not like I don't expect other people to be sensitive to me, so why the hell not? I'll do that. It's fine. It's when people start getting in my face that I don't like it.

The problem is that "getting in my face" includes things like:
1. The National School Chaplaincy Program
2. Religious instruction in public schools
3. Anyone who is against same-sex marriage
4. Anyone who campaigns against safe access to abortions (no, not all anti-choicers are religious, but there is a very strong correlation).
5. Censorship

Basically, situations in the public, secular sphere where religion is invoked as a reason to allow or not allow something. Sod that. Why should I have to live according to your religion?

In the end I'm either very angry or very mellow, depending on the situation. I believe that if we're going to advance as a species and as a society, we need church things to be held in churches. In the public sphere, religion should not have a voice. People should have a voice, but not to speak for their religion; only to speak for themselves, or a defined group of people who have signed up specifically to share those views (like a lobby group or political party). Religion should not be in schools. It should not be in politics. It should not be in research labs and in hospitals.

It can be in you. That's fine. But it's not in me, and I resent anyone deciding something based on the assumption that it should be a part of my life. That's goddamn patronising, forgive the pun.

On Keeping Other Species Toeing their Goddamn Line

In spite of the confrontational tone of that there subject heading, this is really going to be quite a peaceful rumination (a word that always makes me think of cows, so I thought it was appropriate).

I've been having a few work-from-home days recently, which means spending more time with Fluff, the most needy, insecure, demanding and neurotic feline ever to shred a carpet (he's also adorable, but I'm trying not to sound like a crazy cat lady, so we'll just skip over that).

If you take one thoughtful, analytical step back - pets are weird.

Take a step right back. We are keeping another species (with whom, in evolutionary terms, we should be competing for vital resources) in our homes, in our lives, and fed. We lavish upon them the affection we might well lavish on our children (although I can tell Fluff to "sod off and stop bugging me" in a way I might not want to speak to my own spawn).

Originally, this probably all started because animals are useful, and because they are easily manipulated into doing stuff we don't want to do - like hunting mice (cats), helping us hunt or pull carts or guard things (dogs), pulling large heavy objects (horses, oxen), and generally earning their keep. That's a start. While out there in the wacky land of biology, a number of species have worked out how to live and play together for their mutual (or at least one-way) benefit (hello, symbiosis), let's be blunt: my cat does not earn his keep.

He ate a moth the other day, but the poor thing was already dead.

That is the practical side. It doesn't seem like a stable, sensible strategy to keep a pet, and there are numerous people who refuse to keep pets simply for that reason. If you have not felt or been able to form a bond with an animal, then the behaviour of enthusiastic pet-owners is just going to seem surreal and wasteful to you.

There is a more esoteric side to all this (and I'm not sure I'm using that word correctly), and a more marvellous side. I have a tendency to occasionally view animals as utterly alien to human thought. I'm a biologist and a writer of science fiction, so perhaps those facets of my personality are quietly getting together to marvel at one astonishing fact: there are strange animals living in my house.

Never mind that I put them there. There are beings in my house, that I interact with - in a more-or-less predictable fashion - and I have no real idea what they think, if they think (evidence suggests that, with Fluff at least, this is unlikely; however, Black, our other cat, is a problem solver and possible contender for feline engineering awards) and how they see the world, or us. There are catches and traps in the way we think about pets - remember they may respond to their names, but that doesn't mean they understand the label. How on earth do they see us as something to interact with, when we are ten times their size and walk on too few legs? How do they know which bits are eyes and noses?

They are little lives, little lives wandering about in my space and conducting their alien activities with an intent concentration that I can't begin to understand.

Sometimes the warmth of my cat on my lap, the vibration of his purr, the movement of his ribcage with his breathing and all the weight of his fragile little life just astonishes me beyond words.

They are not really very useful, but they are in their own way essential.

This Post Brought To You By...

The number 3 and the number 0, in that order.

Thirty looms on the horizon (for a given value of loom; it's more than half a year away), and if I grumble about it from time to time I get pitying looks from the odd individual announcing to me that it is, in fact, "just another number," as though I have caved to society's expectations by viewing the next decade with such horror.

Terribly mainstream of me. Clearly I have been pummelled by the media.

Mathematically, that's sound. It really is just another number.

Socially and psychologically, I have to disagree. We really are pummelled with preconceived notions and assumptions regarding the big three-oh, and while the majority of those are complete nonsense, we still carry the weight.

We might know that we're not suddenly plummeting into a dull middle-age, but we're aware of the risk.

We might be aware that all sexual attractiveness isn't going to disintegrate, but we know we live in a youth-worshipping culture.

And we might also know that we might have completely different standards and expectations from the preceding generations, but we can't help but be aware of what our parents were up to at this age (my mother had two children at this point, and had been married for ten years).

We can't help looking over our shoulders to see how far we've come.

If I stop to assess the situation, I'm okay with what I've managed at this point. I may not have a mortgage; I haven't produced any squalling offspring; and I haven't finished my PhD.

I have Husband, two cats, two degrees, a diploma, and friends that I'm reasonably sure are better than I deserve. I'm reasonably fit and healthy; nothing has started sagging yet (not that I'm likely to post it on a blog if it does, but I'm going to take the opportunity to say now that all is well); and overall my life is a vast improvement one what it was back at the threshold of my twenties.

I'm less inclined to panic about myself, and I'd be quite happy to measure my life in terms of panic.