The first time I experienced someone getting defensive over taking something as a personal threat was in my second year of college.
We were in a tutorial about history taking, the case was of a man with colon cancer. Sitting in a semi-circle facing a tutor at the front of the small tut room in brookfield. Blah blah introductions presentating symptoms we would ask for, red flags, associated GI symptoms, past medical and medications, family history...
and then she asked the group: what lifestyle risk factors would you ask about?
Someone said alcohol, someone else said smoking, I chimed in diet, looking for red meet consumption and low fibre
She looked so incredibly offended, stared at me for a beat and said no, that's not true, red meet is a significant part of Ireland's diet, it's not a risk factor for cancer, people make that claim but there's no evidence for it.
I as a second med, didn't respond ofcourse
after leaving the tutorial, I went back and checked. There is evidence for it, in fact it's in the textbooks the college itself recommends to us, it's also in the oxford handbook of clinical medicine - the bible of the medstudent.
people, in general, get so defensive when they feel attacked - this is very understandable. what I don't understand (even though I most certainly probably do this too) is why we consider aspects of our lifestyle being aspects of our identity. my diet, and sleeping patterns, and relationships, and chosen field of study are aspects of my life - yes. but they are not Me. I am Me. I am a human being, I am hardworking, I can be self-depricating, I am principled*, I am curious, I will fight for those I love, I want to do something useful with my life, I am a cis woman, I am bi sexual. These are what make up my identity. On the other hand, I also don't eat beef and avoid pork, I prefer to work through the night than be up early in the morning, I have a left-leaning world view, I tend to shower at night, I study medicine, and I also (sometimes) experiment with mild drugs. These are what make up my life-style, my day-to-day existence.
I understand that this is a fine and blurry and kinda porous line. But I think it is a distinction that is important to make. We can sit and debate all of the above, yes. But one should (read: I should) only really get defensive when my identity is being attacked - right? The rest of it is just life filler - things that take up the time I spend on this planet.
An attack on one's lifestyle is not an attack on the self. It's not a degredation of your worth, your personhood. A criticism of a lifestyle factor need not be made into a personal attack, surely?
*being principled (identity - part of your self - not debateable); having certain principles whatever they may be (lifestyle - the way you conduct your life - debateable, malleable).
This can be applied else-where too.
Here, vaccines objectively are good for you, your loved ones, and for the world you live in. This is fact.
Not getting vaccinated is a life style choice - it should be debateable, it should be malleable, it is something you may decide to change when presented with the evidence for/ against vaccines.
Being 'anti-vax' has become a label that people use as part of their identity; a label in the same category as 'woman' and 'human'. And I think this makes people even more defensive when the discussion arises - it feels like their personhood is being attacked.
Your right to choose is your right - and it is within my principles to respect everyone's bodily autonomy. But whether or not you get vaccinated, in and of itself, is a life-style choice, not an identity. Surely it shouldn't be, right?
