Veganuary Validity

I was packing up my vintage Pyrex - yes, I know I just moved in but my dad has decided to construct a kind of built-in sideboard for me - and an article in one of the old newspapers I was using caught my eye. My dad is a Daily Mail (AKA The Daily Fail) reader but you can't choose your family *sigh*. This particular article was about the Veganuary campaign and missed the point by such a large margin I laid it aside to rant about later.

Unfortunately, being me, I can't find the ruddy thing now. However, after much googling (the keywords are so damn common lol) I found it online here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5240825/DR-MAX-MIND-DOCTOR.html - quoted red in this blog.

This is gonna be a long one so grab a coffee and a snack and make yourself comfy...

INITIAL STATEMENT: This is a rant about bad journalism and an attack on a group of people just trying to make a positive difference. This is not about saying that vegans are better than other people or that you should participate in Veganuary. I don't care about your choices half as much as I do about you using false logic to justify them. Just say that you really like bacon and you don't care about the pigs that died for the benefit of your taste-buds.

WHAT IS VEGANUARY?

'Veganuary' is the name of a registered charity (1168566) which promotes veganism. Veganuary acknowledges that people choose veganism for a variety of valid reasons such as concern for animal welfare, environmentalism and health:

"Veganism is one of the most effective choices a person can make

to reduce the suffering of animals, help the planet

and improve personal health"

https://veganuary.com/about/

Veganuary promotes eating vegan* for the month of January. It is a time of year when, after the overindulgences of the festive period, people commonly make (often short-lived) resolutions to improve their lifestyle and diet, fitness and general health. 

*Veganism is so much more than diet but dietary changes are easy to implement and carry the most impact. See my waffling about veganism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ-Wh56MqNg

People often think that eating vegan is difficult, expensive, arduous, problematic...Veganuary aims to dispel these and other concerns; the hope being that after a month people will want to continue being vegan or at very least cut down their animal-based consumption long-term. Unlike a lot of pro-vegan groups (which tend to be all or nothing, even to the point of hating on vegetarians cos they're not doing 'enough') they take a gentler stance that any changes from carnist / omnivore to a more ethical lifestyle is a good move.

After the month is up Veganuary continues to support and encourage people to continue living vegan year round. 

DO I DO VEGANUARY?

No. An overheard conversation (in early 2012?) led me to believe I may be lactose intolerant. I had been ill for over a decade, medicated for IBS which did nothing to help - and have been refused testing for lactose intolerance by several GPs - but cutting out dairy WORKED so I'm gonna say that's what was wrong with me all those years. Then I went vegetarian (again) at the start of 2013 because I just felt 'fed up' with meat. 

Unfortunately many vegetarian foods contain dairy so after several years of struggling with that (and my total lack of willpower to binge on Ben and Jerry's...I also have an eating disorder) and also with concerns that I might become allergic to eggs like my mother I transitioned to vegan in the second half of 2015. 

So as I am already vegan year round I do not 'take the challenge' of eating vegan for a month. I do however follow Veganuary on social media.

SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE DAILY FAIL ARTICLE I STARTED OFF THIS BLOG POST TALKING ABOUT?

Right...titled "There's no need to be smug about your vegan 'detox'" it was written by Max Pemberton and published 6th January 2018.

First off, where has Pemberton got this idea that veganism, or more specifically Veganuary, is a 'detox'? Over and over "The idea is that by going animal-free for a month, you 'cleanse' your body" ...er, no it really isn't. The idea is that people will become vegan or at least eat less meat or dairy after trying it out for a month. It's like companies fishing for business offering free trials or reduced rates for an 'introductory period'. Going vegan permanently might feel huge but a month is an easier commitment.

"Veganuary, like any detox programme, is appealing because it's designed to be broken" ...no, it's really not. I repeat: it's not a detox, and whilst you might be "free to eat as many kebabs as you want" come February the idea is definitely that by then you won't want to.

Secondly, where has he got these ideas about detoxes? Admittedly most are faddy but the principle of 'clean eating' to allow your body to remove impurities is straightforward enough and backed up by science. And again stressing that veganism is not a detox veganism also doesn't equate to 'clean eating' - you can easily be a junk food vegan. 

Pemberton claims "we ingest and produce toxins all the time but our body is perfectly adapted to remove them itself" which is fair but not accurate. We are not perfectly adapted; our bodies are fighting an endless battle to keep balance against encroaching toxicity. He claims that we "go a bit bonkers and throw our biology textbooks out of the window" yet any number of campaigns have been run for people to cut out drugs, drinking, smoking, fats, sugars etc claiming that your body will naturally purge these "sins of yesterday" allowing the body to heal. That's not to say that the damage is fully reversible or that you can live however you want so long as you 'detox' occasionally. Who would quit smoking for example if there wasn't the incentive to undo a proportion of the damage? 

"I say this as a former vegan myself: it's incredibly, mind-numbingly dull." Dude, I have no idea what you were doing but you were definitely doing it wrong. Yes, checking labels is tedious as hell but  it's not EVERYTHING, and obviously the more you cook from scratch with unprocessed ingredients the less that's an issue. Does he mean the food is dull? No way. I've always been a bit...experimental in cooking but I have tried so many more new things since going vegan, especially in terms of world cuisine. There'll be more on this point later on.

What does Penberton mean that "basically every food that is nice has been near an animal in some way or another"? He can't possibly be arguing that potatoes, pineapples or peanuts are 'not nice' because, at some point while they were growing, an animal has been in PHYSICAL PROXIMITY to them?! According to the Vegan Society (https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicible, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose" there's nothing in that about food's nearness to an animal. One assumes that what he ACTUALLY means is that the foods he personally likes have animal products in them. But that's still nonsensical because pretty much whatever it is you enjoy eating there's a vegan version available. Pizza Hut do a splendid vegan pizza, Fry's meat replacement products are great, the vegan version of Ben and Jerry's is divine. Veganism isn't ALL about raw veggies and no fun, or at least it doesn't have to be. If he was bored being vegan it's got to be because he ate too fussily or didn't make the effort.

How about the claim that vegan diets are "incredibly restrictive - and in many ways reminiscent of an eating disorder"...oh, I am gonna have fun with this one...carnists and general anti-vegans do love to compare the lifestyle with eating disorders, often drawing your attention to statistics which link the two. However, there is an important chicken-and-egg* issue here. People may go vegan because they are pre-disposed to food issues OR they might adopt veganism as a method of recovery.

*The egg came first. Eggs existed before chickens. The first chicken would have hatched from a chicken egg that was laid by a proto-chicken -an animal very like a chicken itself but not quite. That's how evolution (and selective breeding) works.

"Veganism does not cause eating disorders. Poor mental health causes disordered eating" 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/07/why-do-so-many-eating-disorder-survivors-turn-to-veganism-as-part-of-their-recoveries-6910356/

The idea of a link between veganism and eating disorders is especially ludicrous if you consider it the other way around. Many people with eating disorders lean toward veganism, especially during recovery, but the vast majority of sufferers are or were omnivores but no one suggests eating meat or dairy causes these problems! There is also absolutely nothing to correlate an omnivore diet with a better prospect for recovery.

The appeal of veganism to people like me who suffer from eating disorders is the control it allows us by automatically cutting out a load of things which are decidedly problematic. Most animal-based foods are high calorie, cheese and butter are just fat, red and processed meats are linked to cancer, eggs contain loads of cholesterol.

The above cited Metro article quotes Dr Julia Coates, a clinical psychologist, also as saying veganism is restrictive...BUT IS IT? In and of itself, I would say not really. Obviously the principle is that you can't eat a whole bunch of animal products but that leaves EVERYTHING ELSE: fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, grains, pulses and a whole bunch of processed products from vegan cheeses to Oreos! There is waaay more that I can eat than I can't. 

'Restrictive'...my kitchen is full of food, I used to have hardly anything in the fridge to the point I even doubted it was worth having one but now I struggle to find space in it.

"A whole new world of food and a new way of cooking are opened up to you.

You start experimenting with ingredients you've never used before,

or sometimes never heard of, like nooch or seitan" 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/26/vegan-diet-lifestyle-health-animals

My eating disorder involves bingeing and purging which leads me towards the junk-food vegan side whereas an anorexic might lean toward raw veganism, that being far more restrictive obviously. Then there are personal preferences and I eat damn near everything, being a fussy eater would make it a whole lot harder. It comes down entirely to how you're living as a vegan - it's the personal choices which matter, not the principle.

Pemberton compounds this idea of a restricted diet with the statement that "the healthiest diet includes a little bit of everything" but what is a well balanced vegan diet missing out on? Contrary to beliefs expressed on social media bacon is not a food group! We get plenty of protein, vitamins, fats, sugars etc. and also more fibre on average than omnivores. That IS a little bit of everything.

What about the 'smugness' referenced in the article's title or "being a vegan at least allows us to demand special attention" or "this 'I am special' mentality"? GAH! No. all the no. Yes I do talk about being vegan a fair bit but that's because we eat three meals a day plus drinks and snacks (on top of the other impacts, but how often do carnists buy leather goods or whatever?) so it's quite a 'present' thing in my day-to-day life. If veganism was a cultural norm it wouldn't be such an issue.

Do I feel 'smug' about being vegan? No. I feel good about myself cos I know it's good for me and the planet and that I am no longer causing suffering to animals but not 'smug'. If anything I feel a little guilty I didn't do it sooner and that I'm doing it from a position of lactose intolerance and personal preference rather than from the ethical standpoint. Do I feel 'special'? No. Do I 'demand special attention'? HELL NO! I'll ask about vegan options or whatever but it makes me really uncomfortable to bring attention to myself in any way at all. I have a lot of social anxiety and that's a thing I absolutely do not want.

Every few months I go for a meal with my extended family and we eat at a Toby Carvery which is great as they have vegan options for me. The last time however it was closed because of unforeseen circumstances so we moved the party to another restaurant. The restaurant was super nice and accommodating and the chef offered to cook me something especially but that kind of 'special attention' was more than I could cope with and I'm ashamed to say I pretty much ran away cos I was verging on a panic attack. Obviously SOME vegans will think themselves special snowflakes and enjoy being the centre of attention, causing a fuss, making people accommodate their needs etc but I am not one of them.

"With veganism there are the arguments about animal welfare and the environment. But you can care about both without going to such extremes" but HOW? How can you profess to care about animals AND condone their slaughter for your food? Even if you are vegetarian rather than vegan you're condoning the forced imprgnation of cows and the resulting slaughter of their calves and the crushing of male chicks which are of no use to the egg industry. How can you care about the environment when the resources used in meat production just don't make sense? The land use - to keep animals on and to grow plant food for their consumption - pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases and the incredible amount of fossil fuels and water it takes to produce relatively little food (both in terms of physical volume and calorific values).

And how is veganism "going to extremes" anyway? As I set out before, the whole point of Veganuary is to show people that it isn't extreme or difficult. It's all a matter of perspective anyway. Different time periods and different cultures would view a modern British omnivore diet as extreme. A huge chunk of the 'obesity problem' (which I think has a LOT to do with eating disorders) is easy access to cheap calories we eat to excess - a single fast food meal that is more than a day's calorie allowance - now that's extreme surely?!

Which leads me to my final point...

EXTREME VEGANISM

There are always people who will take a thing too far and they should not be taken especially seriously.

I have heard so-called-vegans say you're not a real vegan if you eat sugar (some countries filter sugar with bone char, the UK does not), if you drink coffee or alcohol (cos mind altering substances are animals???), if you don't eat all organic (because natural and no pesticides - unattainable but makes some sense) but also if you eat anything organic (because organic food is grown with animal fertilisers...yeah, that's not...please stop) and so on and so forth. it's pretty insane.

"When you're being called murderers and rapists,

that is overstepping the mark, for fairly obvious reasons"

- Alison Waugh, trainee farmer

Source for all purple quotes in this section:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42833132

Hello??? This is taken as a statement of extreme veganism but lets look at it shall we? Murder is only considered a crime when applied to humans but that is not particularly logical:

• Humans are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and distress.
• Farm animals are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and distress.
• And whilst we're at it, fish in the sea are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and distress.

Taking the life of a sentient creature causing it pain and distress 

Similarly, rape is only considered a crime when applied to humans but violating an animal sexually - not forgetting sperm retrieval as well as forced insemination, many vegans describe the movement as feminist as they rarely acknowledge the violation of males in farming - is just plain WRONG.

I am personally not interested in being a 'vegan activist' because I feel that can be particularly off-putting to people who might otherwise be open to the idea. 

"activists hold vigils outside abattoirs and aim to turn the world vegan

by sharing images on social media of the animals' treatment"

and

"cases of activists standing in the meat aisles of supermarkets

with graphic images and noises of animals being slaughtered"

Are these extreme vegans? It might not be my choice but I can't argue against the point they're making. People consume meat and dairy without facing the reality of the suffering their consumption causes.

Joey Carbstron of Save Movement "denies being an extremist,

saying that people have to understand that what is happening to animals is extreme"

People may not want to be educated on these matters but it's like not wanting to see graphic images on the news or bear witness to human suffering. It's not about what you want; I've seen people object to being educated about war, famine, slavery, the holocaust, all sorts of things that they don't want to hear about because they find them distressing. However, the consensus is that people need to know about those things anyway. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana)

"I don't think they can understand, or differentiate between the fact that

different animals have different purposes.

We have these companion animals and we have our livestock

and there is a line drawn there" - Alison Waugh

WHAT EVEN???

1. Animals may be bred for specific reasons - to be eaten or to be pets - but they do not exist for those purposes. It is just how we choose to use them! This is the sort of non-logic used to validate slavery; that black people existed to be subservient to whites.

2. The different animals, the 'line drawn'...this a social construct. Westerners who will happily eat pigs are appalled by China's consumption of dog meat for example. Dogs and pigs are both intelligent animals which make good companions. There is literally no difference except what is culturally deemed as 'normal' and 'abhorrent'. Again, the division of how animals are to be treated down the lines of species smacks of racial segregation or the holocaust; one variety of human being worth less than another. If that is false logic how can we use the same argument for animals? Even if we try to say our need is greater that's pretty much bullshit cos plants feed humans a damn sight better than animal carcasses do! The only real 'need' is in terms of bottlefed babies and tube-fed individuals where dairy is kind of necessary. Other formulas exist but are not without drawbacks.

She's literally justifying her position using the argument that other people think it's okay. Yeah...that's not really how it works. 

FURTHER READING
Blog on the Daily Fail's ongoing campaign against vegans:
https://thecrumbyvegan.com/2017/01/30/what-did-vegans-ever-do-to-the-daily-mail/
Channel 4 offends vegans by branding Veganuary participants as 'asswipes': http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/channel-4-veganuary-post-instagram_uk_5a65950ee4b002283004287a

Family is just a state of mind

Families are bloody weird things, aren't they? Along with all the other aspects of being human I just don't get 'family' seems a very peculiar concept.
That we require parents to be born and to survive early childhood seems fairly straightforward as does the idea that most people will remain in contact with these caregivers and any siblings. I have often likened this bond to Stockholm Syndrome: affection caused by close proximity and shared trauma. You may deduce that I have some difficult familial issues.

I was the only child of unmarried but cohabiting on not-the-friendliest-of-terms parents; I was a fully single* mother of two (*by which I mean zero contact with their father, zero child support, no boyfriends or other co-parenting type person - regardless of time-frame - from the time I was expecting my youngest until they reached adulthood). This means my immediate family consists of my mother and her partner of the last 11 years, my father and my two adult children. So far, so ordinary.

I have quite a large extended family - eight cousins on my mum's side, (who had 20 kids between them and now have 9 grandkids too) two on my dad's side (and another 4 kids there). However, between geography, my parents' relationships with their siblings and a significant age gap between me and most of my cousins there was no relationship there while I was growing up.
The only reason we connected more recently was when my cousin S died in a motorcycle crash back in 2014. I am immensely grateful that we did reconnect as we lost S's brother A to cancer only 18 months later.

Yesterday I went to a funeral for a great aunt on my dad's side of the family. He is not close to his family although he has three brothers. I changed my name at 15...no one on that side had got the memo although I had only met three people in the room before, four if you count the deceased. I'm nearly forty FFS! I'd met the deceased but none of her three daughters nor anyone else in the extended family. I hadn't seen anyone in the room since I was about 13 (I *thought* I'd seen my uncle P when my daughter was a baby but he insisted he'd never met her so I guess not).
My dad is interested in family history and although he tried to engage in conversation and ask questions none of them seemed at all bothered. I feel bad for him that he's trying and getting nowhere. There were the usual niceties of "why do we only meet at funerals?" and "we must meet up more often"...not a note of sincerity behind the words. For my maternal cousins the reminder of mortality was a trigger to get us to know each other better; on my dad's side I guess it's not happening.

It just makes me wonder... Why do some families do the tight-knit thing the media tells us is normal while others just don't? It's not always a matter of falling out, sometimes it's just a case of utter disinterest. I get it though. Why should you have a connection with people you don't really know, who all you have in common is a similarity of DNA? It just really sucks when you would have liked to have a more meaningful relationship.

Agender ex-Cinderella and Name Change Schizz...

Apologies if I have already blogged on this but I had a browse of my titles and nothing seemed to suggest I had so here I am.
Also, I have an update so...

AGE THREE
I was a bit of a git as a child. For example, I can't remember ever being unable to read. Somewhere, around age 3 I remember reading something in one of my grandparents' old Readers' Digest magazines about Elton John's 'Candle In The Wind'. This (somehow) led to my mum explaining that Elton John wasn't HIS birth name and Marilyn Monroe wasn't HER birth name. That is when I *discovered* that if you were famous you could choose a new name...so, naturally, I spent the next few years trying to decide how I was gonna become famous. Cos I LOATHED my birth name, even then.

AGE SIX
Boys and girls confused me. Girls, even at that age, were weird and shallow and bitchy. I wanted none of that. Boys were better but I was neither one of them nor able to become any kind of honourary member. This was the start of a lifelong whatever of being antisocial and a bit of an outcast.

AGE SEVEN
The discovery ordinary people could change their names!!! Maybe I don't have to become an author after all...although that would be nice.

AGE TEN
Contemplating the name 'Jennifer'

AGE ELEVEN
My mum sent me (kicking and screaming) to an all-girls school. A cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion. Five years later I'd gone from disliking girls to loathing them outright.

AGE THIRTEEN
Contemplating the names 'Henrietta' and 'Harriet'. Henry or Harry...

AGE FIFTEEN
I discovered the nickname I'd been using for years - 'Heggie' - was actually a *real* name, albeit a surname, and I changed it - by public declaration, on 15th December 1993.

AGE TWENTY
Despite already being 'Heggie' on everything (GCSE certificates, medical records, my kids' birth certificates etc) I had to get a Deed Poll document for my name change so I could get a passport. The name-change laws are pretty daft TBH. Weirdly I've only ever needed it for passports, a cleaning job and a meeting with a solicitor.

MID TWENTIES
I did a spot of investigating and found out that the name Heggie was a branch of the McIntosh clan, originating from the Western Isles (according to my source).

MID THIRTIES
After years of being anything from low-key annoyed to high-key pissed off that I was expected to think, act or FEEL any particular way because of my birth sex I discovered the term 'agender'.
One of my biggest bugbears had been the whole 'sisterhood' thing. No. I am an only child, thanks. I would have loved siblings but my biological sex wouldn't make me closer to a sister than a brother. That would surely be down to personality, life experience, interests etc.
I found the term 'cisgender' particularly offensive because all the time I assumed I was a biological woman identifying as a woman it seemed to be negating a lot of the stuff I'd felt over the years. Turns out the reason being assumed to be cis annoyed me so much was because it simply wasn't me...although I still suspect cis people don't always have it easy. Like you don't have to be gay to have questioned your sexuality.
To me 'agender' means exactly its definition:

It can be seen either as a non-binary gender identity

or as a statement of not having a gender identity.

People who identify as agender may describe themselves

as one or more of the following:

Genderless or lacking gender.

I am not lacking biological sex, I am not androgyne, what I am is not buying into any dumbass stereotypes, or the idea that mentally experienced gender is even a thing (obviously it is for most people but it's like explaining vision to someone blind from birth). I don't feel gender neutral as such...I just don't feel gender AT ALL.
I really hate labels but finding the term agender was liberating to me. Suddenly I understood why I couldn't understand, if you follow my meaning. Gender issues simply made no sense to me because to me it's not a thing. There's biology and how you choose to identify and a bunch of social norms (which are fairly ludicrous TBH) but to FEEL a particular gender? Nope, does not compute.
For the record I am fine with her/ she etc etc, I guess I generally present in a feminine light but I am also not over my mum telling me (as a preteen) that my wanting to wear jeans and Doc Martens meant I was a transvestite. I care not at all what gender my clothing has. I have no interest in chick-lit or chick-flicks. I don't do the makeup thing or nails or hair, particularly for that matter... I have shaved my head more than once. Nothing gets my back up more than someone projecting their gender stereotype bullshit onto me: i.e. No, I will not stop swearing and be more 'ladylike', dad!

AGE THIRTY NINE YEARS, TEN MONTHS AND ONE DAY
After umpteen times discussing my name change issues, often with the disclaimer - "not that it's comparable with your transgender experience" - I suddenly clocked the comparison.
I had chosen for myself a gender neutral name a full two decades (and change) before I identified myself as being agender. Even then it took at least another two years to see that the two things might have been connected.
I don't want this to come across as me trying to muscle in on or try to assume my issues are in any way shape or form comparable with those experienced by trans men and women because I know damn well that it's not but I honestly had never connected the two issues before: rejecting the (girly) name my parents had given me and accepting my gender identity. Asserting my own sense of identity.

Ultimately, be who you want to be. Let your outside reflect your inside if that makes you happy. Not that you have to, of course. Live your life as YOU choose not as anyone chooses for you or tries to dictate how you should live. If the name chosen by people who hadn't even met you yet doesn't fit the person you've become - you can change it. You have the power, no one else.

Prediction of Death and Diagnosis

A year or two back I stumbled across a case which seemed to solve an ongoing medical mystery. I feel like recording it here in case it is eve proven correct so that I can say "I told you so" ;)

In December 2013 Californian girl Jahi McMath underwent a tonsillectomy. It went hideously wrong and four days later she was declared brain dead. Her family, however, refused to accept this and fought to keep her on life support. This 'futile care' was resisted but ultimately allowed...not least as people do not live very long on life support. In many cases, if death does not result from other causes, the dead brain will rot causing the body to expire from massive infection. Four years later Jahi McMath remains on life support, apparently showing none of the usual signs of deterioration. One of the most notable features of her case is the onset of puberty and menstruation experienced while brain dead - such developments being supposedly being unique to life, and controlled by the pituitary gland within the brain.

This has led to her family feeling vindicated and others questioning how death can be diagnosed if we still don't understand it. In September 2017 a judge even ruled that Jahi might still be legally alive (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-brain-dead-girl-20170907-story.html).

A year or two ago I was following a hunch when I felt that I had solved the mystery.

A child, identified only as TK, (Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco in The Linacre Quarterly 2016: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102206/) survived for 20 years on life support / critical care, despite having been declared brain dead at just 4 years of age.

"He remains the individual kept on life support the longest after suffering total brain failure."

There is a condition, extremely rare but well documented, called Lithopaedion. When a foetus dies in utero it is usually expeller from the mother's body as a miscarriage or stillbirth. When this doesn't happen spontaneously medical procedures (D&C or induction of labour) are used. If left for an extended length of time the foetus will degrade and the mother will die of infection. In the case of a Lithopaedion this is circumvented by the mother's body sealing the foetus in calcium - somewhat like a pearl developing inside an oyster - meaning no infection can take hold as the baby becomes 'petrified' hence the colloquial term for the condition - 'stone baby' (Daniel Ramos-Andrade, Caterina Ruivo, M. Antonia Portilha, Jorge B. Brito, Filipe Caseiro-Alves, Luis Curvo-Semedo in Science Direct, 2014: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047714000082)

In reading the longer account of TK's condition - with autopsy results and imagery in case that bothers you - (Susan Repertinger, MD; William P. Fitzgibbons, MD; Mathew F. Omojola, MB, FRCPC; Roger A. Brumback, MD in the Journal of Child Neurology, 2006: https://hods.org/pdf/Long%20Survival%20Following%20Baterial%20Meningits-Associated%20Brain%20Destruction1.pdf) you may see the connection between Jahi and lithopaedion:

"the specimen [his brain] was seen to consist of a hollow hard-calcified shell containing mostly semisolid and some cystic areas [...] semisolid areas consisted of tan (and scattered intermixed orange, red, and brown), grumous, focally mineralized material, with no identifiable cerebral structures"

TK's brain had essentially been sealed up like a calcified foetus and I feel sure this will prove to be the case with Jahi McMath.

• TK brain death at age 4; Jahi brain death at age 13
• TK brain death from meningitis; Jahi brain death from massive post-operative bleeding
• TK 20 years of life support; Jahi four years and counting
• TK "developed minimal pubic and axillary hair but little other evidence of secondary sexual characteristics" - whilst the lack of full puberty is unsurprising the fact that hair growth occured at all is perhaps surprising; Jahi's puperty is reported but not in detail. It is likely that given her age at brain death these changes were already happening and occurred due to the developmental stage of her ovaries.

I may not be the only one to have realised the connection, of course. In researching this post I found an article listing TK and Jahi's cases in the same sentence yet somehow failing to address the likely connection:

"...there are at least 30 known cases of pregnant women having been physiologically supported for up to 107 days to gestate a fetus; a young boy meeting 'brain death' criteria was physiologically supported for 20 years; and more recently, a young woman has been maintained on home ventilation for over 3 years following the diagnosis of 'brain death'"

(Michael Nair-Collins, Franklin G. Miller in the British Medical Journal, 2017: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2017/08/28/medethics-2016-103867). Note the 107 days for brain dead pregnant women. And that's not 'just' because the women are allowed to expire on delivery of their babies - their medical teams usually have to fight to keep them alive long enough to deliver! In comparison, Jahi has been 'brain dead' for at least 1482 days so far. There seem to be no published dates for TK but 20.5 years is approaching 7500 days. (Dr Alan Shewmon in transcripted interview for The President's Council on Bioethics, 2007: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/nov07/session5.html)

EDIT:

Jahi Kelis McMath passed away (permanently this time) on 22 June 2018 - four years six months and ten days (1653 days total) after she had originally been declared brain dead. She is survived by her mother Nailah and stepfather Marvin Winkfield, and a sister, Jordyn. A second death certificate indicates bleeding caused by liver failure. 

(Sources: CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/29/health/jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-teen-death/index.html Mercury News https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/30/jahi-mcmath-death-could-have-costly-implications-in-civil-case-against-hospital-doctors/ East Bay Times https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/07/03/of-jahi-mcmath-mom-says-that-little-black-girl-from-oakland-made-history/)

As legal cases remain ongoing at this time (September 3rd, 2018) results of full autopsy regarding the condition of her brain have not been revealed.

My hope is that her brain was calcified and she was utterly unaware of her incapacitation. I also hope that the court cases will be found in the family's favour and they will be compensated for their suffering and Jahi's lengthy treatments will be reimbursed. I don't know that I would like for her case to significantly alter how we define death. The body living on with no functional brain is, in my humble opinion, no life at all. However, my sincere sympathies are with Jahi's family.