Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Not Cool With Misogyny

Regarding this TITP post entitled "For the record". It uses an acronym, "TERF". That stands for "trans excluding [or exclusionary] radical feminist". This is one for the dustbin. There's no valid excuse for the existence of this stupid term. What's so specifically noteworthy about the exclusion of trans people by radical feminists, as opposed to any other trans excluders/exclusionary personages of any type? Why are they the only people who merit a specific term?

What's the acronym for those who kill trans people because they are trans? Or are they of less import to the well being of trans people than radical feminists excluding trans people from...........what? 

Rather like people use the racism of white people in fat acceptance to legitimise their desire to turn weight into a caste system for any fat person. These of course give a free pass to the open racism of the 'obesity' cultists and use their same terms.

I'm taking the liberty of reproducing the post in full to illustrate the point;
Other mods may disagree with me, but as far as I’m concerned, TERFtransphobes can FUCK RIGHT OFF.
My WIFE is trans, you bigoted shitheads.
(If you don’t know what this means or is about, feel free to ignore this post.)
-MG
Yes, I agree. TERFtranphobes can fuck right off. I know your schtick. I’ve spent time in your subreddits, trying to understand how you want to deny the right of the people close to me to exist the way they understand themselves. I’ve listened to you cherry-pick and armchair psychologize and twist and deform any research that’s vague enough towards your purposes. At the end of the day you assume *everything* you have to prove. Yours is not a scientific crusade, it’s a plain old regular ideological crusade. The sooner you realize this, the better. But until then, fuck right off.
-ATL
aninkyaffair replied to your post “For the record”
Are all the mods on board with this message? Because I’m not comfortable following or supporting if any of the mod team are even a little bit TERF transphobic sympathetic.”
Even though FatBodyPolitics hasn’t been very active on here I know for sure that she is not cool with TERF transphobes in any way, shape or form.
So yes, everyone at TITP believes that TERFtransphobes can fuck right off.
-ATL
I'ts fair to say nothing is lost except the misogyny.

Monday, 10 April 2017

Release the Hump

Discovered something the other day, especially for those given the useless orders to "lose weight" i.e. starve to deal with sleep apnoea/snoring.

I was doing a bit of [physical] stress release and later found to my surprise that I felt as if someone had opened my throat with a friendly crowbar. It actually stopped me from immediate sleep because I couldn't get over the feeling of having an open jaw and throat and the fresh feeling of air travelling freely as it should.

Can you guess what was the key point of release?

The hump.

Specifically, the dowager's hump.

That's the curve/bump many of us have at the base of our necks.

It seems allowing the release of tension in that area, along with gentle stretching - no force whatsoever and only go as far as that part will allow- opens  the throat and jaw.

The dowager's hump is said to be a product of holding your head too far forward. This leaves your head less than properly supported. This can increase the natural curve until it becomes more hump-like. Fatz can get padding over that area too, depending on tendency and size. Don't worry about that, you can improve your alignment just the same.

If you can manage to remember to keep your head over your chest lump, rather than hanging forward over it, that can make quite a difference to your overall energy. You'd be amazed at how draining that head-jutting forward pose can be.

Do not stress about it though. Just learn to gently correct yourself, whenever you remember to. You'll find over time the situation improves, don't try to be perfect or chastise yourself.

Recall the old imagining your spine is a rope continuing out of the top of your head, being pulled upward...

Sweet dreams, chilli beans!

Friday, 31 March 2017

Evil Under the Sun part II

I want to make clear, whatever the whys and wherefores of fat phobia, the evil I was seconding yesterday is not that. Nor is it the desire or even insistence on inducing weight loss-though the latter is somewhat of a liberty, most people have been willing enthusiasts for losing weight at some point.

It's not even the insistence that people must take in less energy-though again, that too is an invasive infraction on someone's autonomy. No, the evil is the desire to force people to exist in an acute state of hunger because it is uncomfortable, painful, punishing.

It is this malevolent indulgence that has to challenged and blocked. The drive toward this is as out of control neurotic as it is completely unnecessary. What I was pointing at is that even if you insist on reducing the amount of calories other people take in the most rational, efficient and humane way of going about this is to reduce hunger function.

Not to suppress it, why would you do that?

If you feel someone is taking too many breaths, i.e. hyperventilating, and demanded they reduced their intake of air, what would be your instinctive response- to suppress their breathing? To tell them to cover their mouth and nose with a cloth so they found it harder to breathe? Would you then and act all surprised when they instinctively removed the cloth when the urge to take a proper breath became irresistible, when they "came off" your plan for them so to speak?

Or would your impulse be to reduce breathing activity? And what path do you think that would take? Calming them down. There's a symbiotic interaction between the overall level of stimulus in the body and breathing rate, i.e. walk faster, breath faster [and harder].

Increased anxiety, breathing rate goes up.

In this situation you are likely to tell them "Caaaalm, dowwn", emphasising with your hands like playing an invisible sinking piano, whilst mouthing exaggeratedly slowed breaths, indicating they should follow suit.

Even if you don't care about anything but getting folks to lower their calorie intake, you still have no reason to starve people but your own desire. On the contrary, you should know that will lead only to the thwarting of what is supposed to be your wish for them to eat less. As people are unlikely to be able to tolerate this discomfort and urge to do something so in-built. 

This desire to starve people is itself an imbalance. If it ever started from an opinion-that people should lose weight because you say so-it has crept from that to an urge, a need even to make people hurt. To put them and keep them in a world of that pain because of how you feel inside. To meet your emotional need.

Like a hang 'em/flog 'em type who doesn't care what the consequences of inflicting punitive rough treatment  good, bad or indifferent. Rarely satisfied, they believe anyone convicted of a crime in jail should expect the possibility of being raped, beaten up and possibly shivved, on top of the loss of their liberty.

As far as they're concerned, the person made that choice when they decided to 'overeat', sorry, commit a crime.

Those who act under the influence of this anorexia or starvation-by-proxy compulsion exploit the power of assertion over others afforded them by the crusade and its calories in/out =weight premise.

This sense of rectitude-that it is good to starve those who deserve it-that means any weight loss must be induced via this means alone. Leading to self-starvers everywhere. It is a mess.

The need for a moral cleansing of the sin of "overeating" being fat represents this, regardless of what people do or don't eat. Only being slim stands of excision of sin, so as long as a person is fat, they are in an unclean state, a state of sin. 

Nazis, bigots, misanthropes, original sin-ists, eugenicists, psychopaths, everywhere love this, flocking to it like birds of a feather. They define humans as essentially hateful, savage and unclean who need brutal treatment, by the few strong and better to civilise and cleanse them of the sin of existing-once they exit the womb of course.

The 'obesity' crusade/crisis/panic has of course stoked, encouraged and liberated what would otherwise be checked by reaction to its awfulness.

Worship of hunger is for those who are [or have become] literally excited, turned on by the prospect of other people existing in pain and torment. 

How Much Does This Sound Like The Biggest Loser?

If you overlook size and focus on activity how much does this sound like a Biggest Loser candidate?
As a teenager, the 5-foot-2-inch gymnast and cheerleader weighed just 64 pounds. She'd exercise from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., wake up at 4 a.m. to take 3-mile runs before school, skip breakfast and lunch, practice gymnastics or cheerleading after school, and lie to her parents to get out of eating dinner.
Sequestered on the “Biggest Loser” ranch with the other contestants, Mr. Cahill exercised seven hours a day, burning 8,000 to 9,000 calories according to a calorie tracker the show gave him. He took electrolyte tablets to help replace the salts he lost through sweating, consuming many fewer calories than before.
Jeannette Suros says,
I thought for years in order to be accepted and do well with gymnastics, I had to be skinny," Suros wrote.... "Then I got into all-star cheerleading as a flyer, and I thought, 'I have to be skinny so I don't lose my place,'" she continued. "[My eating disorder] convinced me that if I was skinny, I would be accepted and pretty, and I would be invisible to pain."
Strange how much her eating disorder sounds a lot like everyone going at fat people.[Until they tell us about our overly high expectations.]

What about when Danny Cahill got home?
He quit his job as a land surveyor to do it.
His routine went like this: Wake up at 5 a.m. and run on a treadmill for 45 minutes. Have breakfast — typically one egg and two egg whites, half a grapefruit and a piece of sprouted grain toast. Run on the treadmill for another 45 minutes. Rest for 40 minutes; bike ride nine miles to a gym. Work out for two and a half hours. Shower, ride home, eat lunch — typically a grilled skinless chicken breast, a cup of broccoli and 10 spears of asparagus. Rest for an hour. Drive to the gym for another round of exercise.
He quit his job to pursue a healthy lifestyle. That's the very definition of "behavioural addiction"/disorder/compulsion/neurosis. 

Thursday, 30 March 2017

Evil Under the Sun

Sometimes it takes a slim person to respond aptly to weight outrages. Emma Thompson on the brutally honest truth about how Hollywood stays thin,
"The anorexia - there are so many kids, girls and boys now, and actresses who are very, very thin, who are into their 30s, simply don't eat,” she said.
Thompson says she threatened to quit when one of her co-stars was asked to lose weight,
She was absolutely exquisite. I said to them, 'If you speak to her about this again, on any level, I will leave this picture. You are never to do that’. It's evil, what's happening, what's going on out there, and it's getting worse.”
Thank goodness someone has their brain switched on and sadly, for the suffering of people who's humanity hasn't been thrown out like some old trash. I've said myself, the fundamental problem with the crusade isn't fat phobia or even weight loss, it's the insistence on using starvation. And there is something of the occult about that particular insistence.

It is wholly unecessary. 

A lot of what fat people endure is either starvation, the threat of or aftermath of it, and what it provokes. Inflicting and maintaining artificial famine, plus the fightback takes it out of the body, not like smoking, but smoking does too. Repeated campaigns and merely the threat of them eventually exhausts the nervous system. I suspect the fightback is what really takes it out of you in the end.

This doesn't show up for obvious reasons. The fitness freaks pretending to gorge in order to find out what its like to be fat make the error are going the wrong way to support their self denuding falsie.

You can tell this-when people truly experience what other people are, they relay similar experience- a tad difficult for fat people given the internment of fat people's lived experience. Those who diet up the scale for a rest from their lifestyle straight jacket say exactly the same things as before. Same worthless buzzwords, airless verbiage, artless wittering. No development, no insight, no real change.

Talking about the pain of doing something few fat people have ever participated in-planned weight gain/ fatness.

Anyone who knows anything about therapy, knows what I'm talking about. Real insight, shakes you up in some real way. It gets under your guard.You become a changed person, even if only a little, you either know more or you perceive more, often both.

If those temporary gainers were going the right way and actually starved their bodies, we'd all be surprised at how much they'd start talking like fat people. It's one reason why enthusiasm for untrammelled fat phobia is waning. People are increasingly recognising that if they have to starve merely to remain slim or thin, then what would it take for a fat person to slim down.

One surprise of history is how many battles were decided more by cutting off the food supply rather than shots fired. People who had a larger than life will to fight surrendered rather than endure either it or most likely, the starvation of those they were fighting with or in the name of.

So bad is this use of starvation it's deemed a war crime.

It takes real loathing to starve a person. Real rage and compulsion to enthuse about it for this long. Starvation is not a lifestyle, its a deathstyle. A way and means of dying. Even among people who are lauded and rarefied hunger rises to form an aura that is noticeable, past a certain point.

What's occult and yes evil is starvation as the only means of inducing weight loss. It's clearly the wrong way, why would anyone who's not fat have to starve if 'overeating' =gain? This alludes to a similar state as those fat people who find after several rounds of dieting and rebound that their system will not succumb much to strenous restriction.

Despite not eating any outrageous amounts they manage to be fatter than anyone would expect for their intake. That's why the starvation of thin people was oh so predictable. People are getting into trouble with anorexia now before they're close to thin. I don't know exactly why, but our bodies seem more resistant to it than in the past. They are more resistant to death, due to genuine public health measures.

But the desire to starve fat people has become such a dominant overriding compulsion that people cannot stop acting on that impulse, on that feeling, on that emotion. So used are they to ordering others to change themselves root and branch, they don't imagine they need to take their own advice when it comes to their love of wanting others to starve.

Like an actual anorexic, they must get over this. It's a poisonous and corrupt urge.  See how children are used to promote this urge.

I've said for years that this desire for death says something profound about western model of society. Some might say its an outlet for eugenics, the notion of culling those considered unworthy of life, the so called 'useless eaters'. Ironic phrase that.

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Invisible Free Market

Plain packs for the chips features in essence what could be deemed the [conservative/right wing] libertarian stance on weight, one incidentally found all over fat activism;
Adults should have the right to be as fat as they please. It is nobody’s business how healthy you are. And it is no one’s fault but your own if your junk food habit gives you health problems.
For the sake of clarity this doesn't and never has represented the way I feel regardless of who utters whatever version of it. I do not accept self-appointed fanatics get to set the standard for what is healthy merely because they have big mouths and know how to use hate.

Unless there's a choice not to be fat there's hardly a choice to be fat either. Calorie restriction as the only means to induce weight loss isn't choice and its an option like smoke yourself thin.

Who got to decide what does and doesn't constitute choice? The same people who created the contrived way of referring to people above a certain size, slim people, not the people concerned. This statement doesn't bother to ask what choices they actually have or would wish to have.

The writer presumes to know oh so much better.

I realised the other day that no-one in the whole of my life has ever asked me if I wanted to [weight loss] diet.

I don't mean in that snidely way of imply a person needs to, in their opinion, 'lose weight'. I mean no-one has ever asked me how I would have liked to lose weight.

This is what those who consider themselves the vanguard of defending choice condescend to define as choice, for others, not themselves. 

I'm probably not the person to go to for what the various declensions of conservatism/right-winginess. I had the impression though, that the let the market decide people and, people know what's best for them, they don't need to be dictated to by governments et al, would have a better grasp of what they supposedly believe in.

But if we are dictated to by libertarians, I suppose we should what, feel privileged?

So much for the "invisible hand".

Monday, 13 March 2017

A New Old Life for Gabourey

The mutilation class action suit waiting to happen rolls on latest to step on board is Gabourey Sidibe. All wrapped up in using; self love, body positivity and aiming at straight at Black women as a target market for abuse of the surgical process.

After a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes she decided, no doubt on "medical advice", to go for peace of mind to save potential harm of diabetes playing on her mind. Similar factors went into Angelina Jolie's surgery.

The difference is the extent to which Gabby's story is utterly contrived by those who've striven to deny even the most minimal means of making positive adjustments to metabolic function. Jolie was seeking to head off an increased threat of a real pathology-cancer, though there are arguments about that. Whereas Gabby is doing it to alter function the wrong way, as that's the only way available. 

Everything that happened to Gabby was decided by ideology; being put on her first weight loss diet at the age of 6 by her parents, to the subsequent years of diet, regain, desperately trying to lose gains, until the (partial) nervous collapse of weight loss diet burnout.

With an often continual upward climb having to desperately embark on more wasted years often driving their weight ever upward, into the arms of mutilators.

The article says she'd been trying for 10 years to diet her weight down, as she's 33 that seems to mean she had a few years rest between burnout and that particular tranche of adult dieting career. That's how sane people can happily pay to have their healthy function butchered and feel better for it.

You can feel better for just about anything if what came before is made intolerable enough for you. Though how those falling for this hype will feel when they realise exactly what has been done to them is anyone's guess. My feeling has been the last to comprehend are likely to be the angriest, given what it takes [often unconsciously] to stay on board.

Gabby herself said this is a last resort, that it is any resort for is the decision of those who claim to care so much about health. 

From gun to tape this cult has complete control over you and your life-as a fat person- even to the way you perceive the reality of that. No-one should have this much control, it is as corrupting as it is evidence of corruption.

Getting you to act against your own interests as your default position is why it is a cult in all but name.

Unlike fat activists I say the ace held is not fat phobia, it's blocking the science.

Obfuscation, half-truths, misrepresentation, tendentious interpretation above all, a hegemony of collusion..... It perhaps this along with the extent of mercilessness that may be what ensures they do not get away with this-forever. Using alteration of hunger/appetite as a selling point is all very well, but that helps to point out that cal res is a dead duck,
“My surgeon said they’d cut my stomach in half. This would limit my hunger and capacity to eat. 
My surgeon said indeed! Same old ob wallahs speaking through fat people with their script. Prioritisation of cal res decided the removal of stomachs, this as a side effect reduced the body's ability to generate hunger and changed the way appetite functions. That wouldn't happen if hunger was all in the brain/mind-which is the basis of cal res-which was the excuse for cutting the stomach out in the first place.

They should have started from the point they're selling this mutilation on! The whole cal res experiment-including dieting- has been a waste of time. They would have started from here if they'd had any real interest in actual physiology or an ounce of compassion for real people.

Metabolic function is designed to be altered. It has to all the time just for your body to be able to maintain itself. Its just those in this business prefer to do that what they feel like. And as long as there is no alternative, they'll be able to continue to do just what they can get away with.
Here's the DM's health correspondent,
...they work by restricting amount of food the stomach can hold. With less space to hold food, the patient will consequently consume fewer calories. It involves removing 80 percent of the stomach.
Umm, not half,
"More importantly, the operation stablizes a number of gut hormones which are off-balance in obese people driving them to crave food when they don't need it. It also controls blood sugar levels....
If it's more important cutting out the stomach would be superfluous. As for hormones being "off balance" and the rest of that tendentious nonsense is the case, why is cutting out virtually the whole of a healthy functioning stomach required to 'normalise'? Don't slim people [Gabby's unlikely to become that] have whole functioning stomachs?

And why do many people regain lost weight as their bodies heal and regain function. 

So we can all agree, if you insist on reducing intake that dictates that you  reduce/alter hunger function.

We can also it seems agree cutting a stomach out to achieve this has been an irrelevant detour....