Cancer Vs Morality

I was vegetarian in my teens (age 13-17, 1991-1995) - as I have been again since 2013, and now vegan - and, perhaps in consequence, formed particular views on the subject of animal testing, including in medical contexts. I simply do not place humans above other animals to such an extent. Mortality is a fact of life; causing animals to suffer in the vain hope of prolonging human life is, to me, both reprehensible and futile. For once one disease is conquered another appears - the balance always must be maintained. Despite my eating meat for many years in the interim my views on animal testing did not change; to me killing an animal to eat it is far less cruel than the prolonged suffering experienced by lab animals. I freely admit I am not as good as I should be about buying cruelty free products but I certainly won't donate to charities that perpetuate animal cruelty.

Back at secondary school (1989-1994) my 'house charity' was for cancer research. I caught a lot of flack for refusing to contribute on the grounds of animal cruelty. One thing I got a lot was "you'd feel differently if cancer affected someone in your family" which is the most incredible bullshit in my humble opinion. Do people really have such shallowly rooted morals that they only hold high ideals whilst it's in their favour? People can and do and should be able to change their stances on things as they learn and grow and experience life...but only believing in that which is of personal benefit is pretty low. This is something I came up against in my OU Philosophy module and to be honest I was astonished that even Slytherin types like myself would just chop and change their belief system so easily.

I feel the need to revisit this due to recent events. My family has been touched by cancer several times:

• My nan (d. 2003) was, in the 1960s, one of the early survivors of bowel cancer (I did not know this until after she died of unrelated causes)
• My stepdad also survived bowel cancer in recent years
• I have had two cancer scares (1998 & 2007 - both ovarian), my parents have both undergone investigations too (for various potential cancers)
• One of cousins lost her husband to lung cancer in 1996
• Another cousin died of brain cancer this past Thursday

And you know what? I still feel the same. I respect that other people will feel differently but I still do not hold human life as so intrinsically valuable as to warrant that kind of suffering to many, many animals. I am deeply sorry for the human suffering involved but people die. Cancer is often considered a particularly cruel disease but there are few nice ways to die. People talk about 'dying of old age' like it's some kind of ideal...I'm fairly sure it's not from what my parents have told me about watching their parents die. Death is rarely painless and dignified. Personally I'd rather die of something than nothing, not decomposing alive as my body craps out - I can only hope my brain would be mush by then and 'I' would be oblivious to the indignities of an extreme old age.

Cancer survival rates have improved largely due to improvements in diagnostics and awareness meaning more cases are caught at an earlier and more treatable phase. They have also improved due to the trial and error of treating HUMANS. Doctors have best learned how to treat people by treating people.

The latest cancer research news stories suggest that cancer cures will be found in the individual patient's genetic make-up (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20160420/Genetic-markers-may-influence-how-breast-cancer-patients-respond-to-treatment.aspx) or in the genes of the specific cancer itself (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414082124.htm). In other words, decades of hunting for a miracle drug as a cure-all may well have been entirely pointless, especially in terms of animal testing if we are the key to our own disease.


SEE ALSO:-
http://animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments//2574//
http://www.peta.org.uk/living/health-charities-are-they-spending-your-money-on-animal-testing/

The Great Loo Debate

I have seen an awful lot on social media lately about transgender people's right to use the bathroom of choice and I want to put in my tuppence worth on the topic.

1a. Gendered bathrooms are a thing we are taught to expect from early childhood, a lot of people are going to be pissy (no pun intended) if expected to do something they are distinctly uncomfortable about. Given that estimates put non gender conforming people at around 1% of the population that leaves a huge majority of people who could be left feeling potentially unable to use public restrooms.

1b. Being uncomfortable about using public bathrooms leads to shy bladder / shy bowel syndrome which leads to issues like urinary tract infections, constipation and even incontinence. I understand that a lot of trans people may well suffer from this but dispensing with segregated bathrooms is likely to exacerbate the issue and become a health risk for a lot more people.

1c. Who have you shared a bathroom with of the opposite biological gender? For a lot of us only EVER family members and people we were otherwise intimately acquainted with. Maybe YOU have a background where you've shared facilities with a range of people but a lot of us haven't and would never willingly to do so.  Also I should imagine that for women of very conservative religious backgrounds particularly this is could be a deeply problematic thing. I'm no expert on religious issues but given that strictly religious women of several failths have to be separate from men in many day-to-day activities anyway this is bound to be a deeply divisive issue which could lead to cases of religious discrimination if segregated facilities were not upheld.

2. We're being told that 'bathroom predators' are a myth but tell that to the numerous men, women and children who've been assaulted in that way. Yes, most people are raped / abused by people they know but assaults by strangers can and do happen; yes, we know same-sex assaults happen but statistically women are more likely to be assaulted by men than other scenarios - and public restrooms have always been considered a high risk place. Girls go to the loo in packs for REASONS, and those do not generally include fear of basilisks.

3a. No one is specifically equating being trans with being a 'bathroom predator' BUT...being trans doesn't make you a good person. Sorry but your identity does not equate to your morality.

3b. How are we planning to ascertain whether someone is trans? Disabled people have to carry ID / radar keys to access locked facilities which they have to have medical proof of their NEED for such a thing (which, lets face it, is an utter disgrace. Adults, especially those with incontinence issues, should not be having to ask to use the bathroom in the 21st century!) - you see someone using the disabled bathroom you can challenge them on their right to do so. What people are REALLY concerned about here is predators PRETENDING to be trans; a system so bogged down by political correctness that a man entering a women's bathroom (for example) is not challenged.

4. Not an issue that is usually raised but...if genderless bathrooms become commonplace / people are not challenged on entering a bathroom contrary to their apparent birth sex it may well also lead to an increase in *ahem* bathroom assignations / public indecency issues and I don't suppose anyone wants that.

Question: if a man in a gender-free bathroom comes out of a cubicle with his fly unzipped / if a woman comes out with her skirt tucked in her knickers will they risk being done for exposing themselves??? These things happen a lot and are usually rectified before leaving the restroom thanks to mirrors / friendly fellow occupants. Mixed bathrooms could seriously complicate that.

I personally think trans people who are undergoing treatment - psychological, hormone or surgical - should be able to use the facilities of choice and being issued with a medical ID (like the disabled version) to prove their case if challenged. Simply saying 'I identify as a man' or 'I identify as a woman' is too easy for paedophiles and other sexual predators to do.
There are few statistics on either but there are likely to be more gender non-conforming people than sexual predators in the UK but this is not about numbers this is about perceived risk. Sexual predators pose a risk and changing how public bathrooms operate will certainly increase that risk as well as perception of it.
It would be a good idea if all new public buildings were required to provide a gender-free FOURTH bathroom type (after male, female, accessible - previously disabled) - being for trans and others such as parents who need to supervise opposite gender children (which can be a major headache, especially if you have an older child with special needs who is not 'disabled' as such). A similar requirement could be put in place that all refurbishments should provide this fourth category of restroom wherever possible. By being a fourth type it would give people the choice, and choice is important - for ALL of us.

EDIT (2019)
I identify as agender and I am biologically female so I have always used female loos. I have cleaned bathrooms for a living and have no desire whatsoever to share facilities with males of the species - even at home! When my stepdad visits I make him use one particular loo cos he pees on the floor!
I was assaulted by a teenage lad the other day for being agender... and that was out on a busy main road - heaven knows how much danger people could be at in an enclosed, private space like a bathroom. Sexual assault, gender assault, religious persecution, an innocent lad getting mistaken for a paedophile because he took his little sister into the bathroom?! The possibilities are endless and while not all are limited to shared public loos they'd certainly make it easier to attack someone.