Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Fear and Loathing

Fat generates fear and loathing, and it's not about looks or the supposed Darwinian reverence for beauty, heath et al. "Obese mannequins are selling women a dangerous lie". It's a (true) burden we must all endure, trying to work out what the hell ob cultists are going on about at any one time. We are told we must "treat" ourselves with exercise.
Your GP can advise you about losing weight safely by eating a healthy, balanced diet and regular physical activity.
Presumably one might wear stuff created for such exertions promoted as the primary weapons of war. You have to remember the 'obesity' construct and its cult, including its continued promotion of CRIWL-calorie restriction induced weight loss, requires the suspension of critical (and moral) faculties. This leads people to display something akin to trance logic,
An altered mental state in which a person’s normal capacity for critical analysis is suspended, and an increased level of logical inconsistencies is tolerated...the alternate thinking process that enables ideas that would be paradoxical to the conscious self to peacefully coexist within the mind
See what I mean?
I fear that the war on obesity is lost, or has even, as is fashionable, ceased to exist, for fear of upsetting people into an early grave.
We're talking about weight change, war is not required, all that is, is to find out how to reset the body's destination with regard to its (homeostatic) restoration of its own mass. Put simply, a way to use the body to alter weight, that works. Is that Tanya's complaint? Quackery continuing in place of science, about what a disgrace that is? 
Nike Inc, the multinational company named after the Greek goddess of victory, has introduced plus-sized mannequins to its flagship store in London to “celebrate the diversity and inclusivity of sport”. They wear the famous Nike tick, which says: welcome to the mainstream.
Okay, she's talking about the un or dis-easing of fat people to the point where it surpasses the dis-easing of (repeating) the same pathological and doomed experiment of weight loss dieting. This un-easing consists mostly of; medicalisation, pathologisation, bullying, insulting, punishing, condemning, silencing and hiding the existence of people above a certain size. Tanya feels this mannequin represents a violation of those well-known medical tools. Why isn't she prepared to state this clearly?
I would never want a woman to hate herself for what she finds in the looking-glass.  
She can't bear to think of herself as the type of person who would seek to make women unhappy on account of their looks. 
Advertising has always bullied women, but this is something more insidious. I have watched the spindly, starved creature – the child ballet dancer – who was, for many years, the accepted ideal, walking down the Paris runways in so much make-up you could miss the signs of malnutrition. It was an ideal designed to induce enough self-hatred that women would shop to be rid of it.
Always bullied, really? Not, welcomed them to the "mainstream"? You know I've never found this sort of rhetoric remotely plausible, not even when I first heard it as a child. Then I assumed I'd catch on eventually. Not so. 

My view is simpler, advertisers strive to shift the product of those who pay them. Haute Couture is well known to be a province of middle and upper class folk. Fashion uses thin models to sell their clothes as female curves were felt to distract from the rags they display. In terms of its mores, its an outgrowth of middle and upper class sentiments and ideals, of what they aspire to be.

Middle and upper class [slim] women complain about this by shooting the messenger, thin women and their bodies, but what they're really complaining about is not winning at thinning. They don't want to dismantle this system of "unattainable bodies", they want to win at being the it-girl. They're uneased about that so they re-route their complaint. Rather than examine their own feelings.

If this is about poor old innocent women being made unhappy bad men in advertising, why does the notion of having something that works for all women not really interest these complainers? Winning wouldn't be exclusive then would it? You can see this in the elitism of Tanya types in her desperately trying to have her celery and munch it too, trying to be underhand in exhorting everyone to keep fat women in their place, hidden.  

This sort of argument as it is presented is dead on its auto-dialled arse. Fat phobia is ruthlessly exposing it and others,
Recovery depends not on...... personal responsibility and seeing the truth.
Personal responsibility and seeing the truth eh? What's personally responsible about insisting your mind is in the control of advertisers? That they dictate your view of yourself? If you are so personally responsible, why don't you own your mind? Either you like the perfume etc., advertised, or you don't. If you do buy it-through personally responsibly earning sufficient funds- if you dont, leave it be. 

Why are you so oppressed by images folks trying to sell you stuff use? I'm waiting for you to tell me again in a way that doesn't require you to do/be the opposite of what you insist fat women are/are failing to be. Have at it TanTan.
the truth is not so pretty; it is unease that sells clothes and bags and perfume and cosmetics as redemption
What uneases you, eases us? Presumably that is the distance between refinement and erm, being as common as fat. How does feminism make sense if women differ so fundamentally?
The fat-acceptance movement, which says that any weight is healthy if it is yours, is no friend to women, even if it does seem to have found a friend in Nike.
FAM says pretty much what Tanya said in her 2008 piece, "In defence of our fatties, let them eat cake".
For many months now, it has been clear that I'm at war with society. Or rather, that society is at war with me. Call me paranoid if you must but everywhere I look, I am denounced, oppressed and scolded. According to the advertising industry, I am unattractive; men don't want me. Or if they do, they certainly won't tell their friends about it. Clothing shops don't cater for me. In fact, they detest me. In Bond Street, I am literally waved away from the racks of precious clothes.
...the Kim Kardashian body – was even weirder, and worse. It’s both fat and thin – a pornographic body designed by gamers – and, if you are mad enough to want it, is only really achievable by surgery and sleeping in the gym.
Those hating fat women's bodies invariably like to go in hard on other women's bodies-they're demonstrating their fairness. Word to them, spreading your mysognist gaze to other bodies, isn't saving you. I mean, "pornographic body"? Your guess is as good as mine.

She obviously does want FAT women to hate themselves for what they see in the looking glass. That doesn't sound good at all. It would be bad enough if you said you wanted women to hate themselves on account of their looks. Picking out specific women somehow sounds like trying to creep through a squeaking door. The feminist notion of "sisterhood" ergo, all women and feminism itself is on the ropes.
But to have control over your body you must first know it; to be oblivious is not to be happy, unless you are a child.
Oblivious to what hun? It's called FAT acceptance, is thin now spelled f-a-t?

To know your body is not by any means to hate it, Tanya knows this, but how to advocate for women to be pressed into doing something by making them feel like shit about themselves until they keep doing it: for some, whilst complaining any such discomfiture oppresses women, without seeming to be a sell-out biche?

Dear o' lorrr, it's a conundrum I don't envy. 

Suffice it to say again, this could all be avoided by finding the proper way to alter bodyweight rather than trying to uphold discomfort to drive people into repeating failure and deepening despair. But people like Tanya don't seem to want that either.

Thursday, 6 June 2019

"Obese is a Slur"

Well, I can co-sign this "Obese is a Slur". There was a time when I wanted to avoid it. The last thing fatz need is the non-term 'obesity' being weaponised as an insult. That was an error of judgement on my part. I hoped peddlers of this crap would take it back, as they were the ones who released it deliberately to brand people, straight-jacketing them into a fictionalised identity.

Would you know, they don't give a damn. In their arrogance, they're just going to keep branding people the with 'obese'. In that case one has to proceed on those terms and make the best of things.

Yes, haters will probably latch on to it as a term of abuse, and yes, these 'ob' shitheads will come with another weasel word if they have to, sad, but okay, if in the meantime this particular foul coinage is dragged through the dirt, so be it. Let these quacks put in something of a shift for once.

Allowing 'obese' to be the slur that it represents will hopefully convince more people to distance themselves from it. It may even spark in them the urge to defend themselves from the cult as a whole, in ways that still don't make sense to many. And maybe, just maybe that will make it easier for people to distance themselves from the whole 'obesity' canard all together. Even going so far as to recognise that it has nothing to do with anyone but those bandying it around.

'Obesity', not simply the term, but everything that goes with it, is like going out of your house to realise it is surrounded by water, as in the midst of a flood. You have to wade through the water, so to speak to get in and out of your home. Your body and mind adapts to these conditions-this changes you-that's internalisation [the changes below your conscious awareness]. But one thing you know above all else is that this water, though surrounding you, though everyone's talking about it, pointing to it, using it as the basis for discussion-did not come from you/your body.

It's all outside you, it does not represent you.

You can tell this about 'obesity' by the fact that it does not describe your life. It doesn't respond to or even name your needs. It does not react to your feelings no matter how vivid, rational and evident they are. It only reacts to the feelings of those who expect us to submit slavishly and serve it.

It is a cult, because a cult, unlike even religion seeks to replace your own thoughts, with the ones it wants you to have. The 'obesity' cult, has always erased your real experience, along with any sense that weight is an aspect of your experience which has made an impression on your intellect and psyche.

Instead crusaders expect to dictate what those are and you should memorise them, speak them out as if they have something to do with you. Speaking the untruth to empower them. They literally use you to always be talking to themselves.

That's the real slur.

Friday, 31 May 2019

Repeat Fail, Complain About Fail, Repeat Fail, Repeat Complaint About Repeated Fail......part 2

Hunger = signal, eating = response acts as a dynamic to regulate your body's intake. Dieting, by seeking to block the latter, stops this from being any use, passing the calculus from your body to your conscious mind, which was not designed for this. 

The reason for having diet plans in the first place, was to prompt you on how much to eat, as you have lost your guide. It also seeks to guess the proportion of nutrients your body needs, also something your body does automatically, by design.

During all this, your body continues to make its calculations, that's inbuilt, which get thrown off more and more by this pointless ill-judged obstacle in its way.

Diet peddlers don't mention dieting alone creates the need for calorie counting. Followed by; weighing and measuring your food, portion suggestions 'control', labelling on food, cal counts in menus, even drugs and the removal of the stomach etc., all seek to repair the same initial fault, none of them do more than create the need for yet another intervention.
One of the reasons for this seems to lie in our desired goals: people who want to lose weight tend to underestimate their food consumption, while those who want to gain weight, are more likely to overestimate it....
In other words, dieting dismantles the ability it requires to implement it. Literally, destroying itself. Genius.
...people with small appetites perceive even a small amount of food as a lot
 That's how it feels when your hunger matches your intake, regardless of how much or little you eat, you feel satisfied.
Ultimately, perception is the deciding factor: someone with a naturally small appetite and someone with a large appetite will perceive the same portion of food completely differently
The deciding factor is the settings your body is operating to, not what you put in your body. Perception tells you how you are using or mis-using your body. A tall person perceives the highest shelf in the store differently than a short person, because they are different to them. What makes them taller or shorter is SETTINGS.
In most cases, a person who can 'eat anything she wants without gaining weight', simply cannot and/or does not want to eat more than she does, and she doesn't have the feeling she is denying herself anything.
Though I have never liked the term, anyone can eat anything they want and not put on weight, as long as their body is holding its own. It is the requirement to lose weight by mis-using your body that causes the problems or 'perception' difficulties. The consequence of the failure is not the cause of the failure.
According to her perception, she always eats as much as she wants, while her overweight acquaintances complain of constant self-denial.
That is because she IS eating what she wants, by responding to her signals properly. Her "acquaintances" aren't permitted such privilege, therefore they are not using their bodies in the same way [and therefore cannot be judged as if they are].
Often, it is the occasions when she completely pigged out that lodge in her memory, while the fact that he forgot to eat breakfast, or that she didn't eat a thing during the eight hours between breakfast and dinner, are simply forgotten.
Again that is just normal eating regardless of size or intake. We remember feasts, special outings, parties and catching up, sometimes we deliberately "save" up a bit of hunger to experience the velocity that comes with that. I can no longer say for sure whether I am greedy or not. I feel like I am, because like "her" I meet my needs. When I didn't, I didn't feel like I ate what I did, personally. Though that continued even after the initial lowering of my intake. I too don't eat during the day, and think little of it. This is largely down to stopping dieting, though it does not necessarily happen automatically.
An overweight person, by contrast, will be more likely to underestimate portion size and to forget about the between-meal snacks they had.
That is the price they they are paying for 'advice' to be permanently on a dieting life sentence, not to mention the nastiness aimed at them and their bodies. 
The only useful way to get a realistic idea of your eating habits is to weight absolutely every mouthful with a set of kitchen scales and write it down.
Or you could just reduce hunger function. Tell us again why professionals don't wish to find out how to do this? As certain fat phobes say; "Wouldn't it be easier than writing books about why people must keep repeating the same failure?"

Wednesday, 29 May 2019


The Alabama state-legislature recently decided to prohibit abortion after the detection of a 'heartbeat', said to be around 6 weeks duration, even though, according to professionals, this happens before the heart is even formed as a viable organ.This to all intents, bans abortion it is unusual for a woman to know she is pregnant at such an early stage.

Though its rather a crunching gear shift, at this time especially perhaps, it's hard to overlook the difference in the way fat people claim to see the difference between manipulating human reproductive and metabolic systems.

The inherited activist position is weight loss is some kind of affront. It's deemed  inherently fat phobic to wish to be able to alter one's weight at will, in a downward or reverse direction. It's based on the totally false basis led by the slimming industry, that calorie restriction induced weight loss is the only possible form if weight loss, ergo is weight loss.

It's clear that weight loss is an end, not the means to that end. Cal res dieting is and should be separated from weight loss itself. Preventing and aborting pregnancy has already identified efficacious means, so the quarrel is around blocking (or not), access to those. In the case of weight, the blocking of weight loss, has occurred before a viable method of resetting has been identified-in a (modern) Western-model context.

We are being denied the ability to stop, reverse or even decelerate increase by a tyranny of pseudoscience along incumbent 'pro-life" style fanatics. Who also purport to be "pro-health" but are equally obviously nothing of the kind. On the contrary, they thought nothing of the abuse they inflicted and encouraged others to inflict on fat people, until we consistently spoke out against this.

Folks recognise a form of control of women is exercised through denial or threat of denial of access to controlling their bodies as they see fit, similarly, the control of fat people and others is exercised through the absence of any viable efficacious and benign means of altering metabolic function and body mass.

I believe it is that absence more than anything which truly leads to the anything goes to try and make the failure succeed desperation we see. The lie that dieting is weight loss also assists people's preparedness to abuse themselves by keeping our expectations of weight loss is, set by dieting, rather than by our body's benign and easeful fluctuation.

All the unpleasantness associated with weight loss, is about attempting to induce it through cal res. Rather like a "backstreet" unsafe abortion by the improperly trained has a deservedly notorious reputation. Desire for weight loss is part of the same desire for bodily autonomy ["Body Politics-The Republican Party's global war on abortion"] that marks the desire for access to reproductive management. And led pioneering feminists to try bringing about abortions amongst themselves, successfully.

Perhaps that could be revisited to help keep some of these entitled pricks a bit more on their toes. 

When it comes to weight, fat activists are in the equivalent of "pro-life" position, along with fat phobes, insisting weight loss and the desire for proper means to it, is inherently wrong, responsible for discrimination against fat people. This is not convincing, anomalous as it is with their attitudes to reproductive control.

Looking at Sonalee Rashatwar for example, self-described as representing "radical fat liberation", insists her exclusion from potentially manipulating her reproductive system-using the morning after pill is "structural medical fat phobia". At the same time,
Your dream to lose weight comes from a deeply internalized desire to assimilate into colonized ideals of white supremacist beauty and health that morph arbitrarily over time due to capitalism and fat phobia.
Not at all ironically, this presumes that because the western model has made such a balls up of weight, than everyone else must have too. This is not correct. A lot of so called actual western medicine had a lot of input from an erm, global support system.

Africans, Asians and Muslims (crossover I know) haven't got anything on hand, and neither has the West. Co-incidence? You decide.

That statement also tries to pretend/erase the desire of all comers to be able to alter their weight. Just because desire for anorexia has not reached such giddy heights elsewhere-in the main-does not mean people have not sought to alter their weight or be slim.

People certainly like this "Capitalism hates fat" but it ignores the currency a "slim pill" would bring. The main reason it hasn't is failure is more important than that currency. Failure is being monetised to keep it going. To stop all but the most greedy or bigoted from reconciling with the truth.

It also incidentally, ignores the way, calorie limits caricature a (mocking) idea of communism and the way 'obesity' discourse is a flat out anti-capitalist screed. Like it or not, the notion of weight as an accumulation of energy,-currency even (one activists support)-does match excessive self-enriching feudalist storing of economic energy.

The only place many Right wingers can connect with an honesty about Capitalism is through 'obesity' wittering. On twitter, someone mentioned they'd been told fat people are to blame for climate change. I'll bet that was a R-W person. They find it truly liberating to break their silence in this way.

Fat phobia is an issue, but only with the absence of power in our own hands, enables that to amount to anything much. With the ability to alter weight, how would that happen? The ability to alter your own body in this way would tear up the crusade from top to bottom.

This bizarre non-argument of; "Fat is very bad, means you must diet even though it has failed", is a way of blocking just getting on with that." Yet look at the extent of support for Jack the Rippering people's guts.

And the most prominent fat activists it seems tend to go along with this blocking. Pretty much everything fat activists say leads to the same place as the 'obesity' crusade. You must be branded 'obese' or "with" say fat phobes. If you are not fat, you are "eliminated" say fat activists. You must keep repeating the failure of dieting, say fat phobes. Weight loss is verboten, say fat activists.

Fat phobes say, "Dieting and weight loss are one and the same", ditto, fat activists. It would be easier to come up with something fat activists say that doesn't lead to exactly what fat phobes are imposing on fat people. Activist want "fat justice" which consists of people stopping the unpleasantness that is largely either the substitute of proper methodology, or has grown out of it.

This ignores those who are being neglected because this area has been stymied by 'obesity' /weight loss quackery.

SR says, "It's okay to be disabled by your fat..(sometimes)". Certainly fat phobes agree with that. They can't wait to disable your gastric system. The reason people are getting to 700lbs plus in the main is lack of any options. If you can stop someone at 600 rising from getting to 700, then you can stop them at 5, 4, 3 and so on.

Obviously, access, to facilities, is important the higher up the weight spectrum you are, but for me, access to altering the course of that size is at the top of that list. Anyone who wants to be 700 can be so just as well if they can easily avoid what they currently have little real chance of given the forces acting on and in them.

It also means they can unchose it if they so decide.  None of the business of fat phobes nor fat activists. Just like contraception, except drugs aren't necessary.

Tweaking metabolic function is far more "natural" than making yourself temporarily infertile. It's far more instinctive as our metabolism is constantly fluctuating according to its own function and purpose. It is constantly self-adjusting to your requirements.

Not to mention, dieting and the threat of it has already manipulated/altered the course of many fat people's weight and health. Even if a person is naturally fat, i.e. their body just goes there, it still wouldn't necessarily have gotten exactly there without the help of cal res dieting and homeostatically induced restoration.

Dieting distorts appetite and hunger function. It alters energy expenditure and though it may well have had some downward pressure on some people-demographics beg the question of whom-it has been well-known to push people's weight upward.

No one can really say whether their body was destined to be where it is. Weight is not even less of a polarity than sex, how can one bypass the latter but promote the former?

As Rashatwar has so astutely read, dieting is not really consensual. It was previously enforced by lack of alternative and lies. Increasing the coercion is more and more open, though hidden behind copious nonsense-jargon like "weight-management", "intensive behaviour therapy", "nutritional-counselling", "food/sugar addiction", "binge-eating disorder", "obesity-treatment" and other weaselease too ashamed of itself to openly state exactly what it is.

Repeat what has led us here. Repeat dieting by any other name.

So I will also say it again, being denied the means to reset weight must cease. We should be able to apply our conscious attention to bring it about, in some way gentle way which uses the bodies own abilities, the question is how? No-one should be forced to "lose weight" regardless equally, no one should be forced to be fat/ter than they want to be either.

In the same way that no woman should be forced to be or not to be pregnant. 

Friday, 18 January 2019

Repeat Fail, Complain About Fail, Repeat Fail, Repeat Complaint About Repeated Fail......

As you know we are all required by health care professionals et al, to be slim and to do it by one method that's a pretty comprehensive failure. Such epic failure cannot be hidden, either stop pretending that we don't all know this, or attack the person. They're to blame, they're doing something wrong, they've failed.

This is a major driver of their attacks on fat people, not deeply held antagnoism. The effect on the targets of this is on the ability to perceive our own actions and their results. It also has led fat people to feel they have no credibility, in this and other areas.

It is this not "disbelief" which prompts policing people into this state of self-incredulity, it is the salvaging of dieting. Belief is faith or assertion in the absence of evidence or conclusive evidence, either for or against. The evidence here is overwhelming, dieting has failed. Every person above an acceptably designated size, who's dieted, is evidence.

Here's a current example of the everlasting cycle to present the individual as defective and dieting as viable. "I lost 13 stone – now I know the truth about obesity" by Nadja Hermann. It's the same old shit its all in your head, but her spin is your problem is your "fat logic" [yup]. This led me assume she was, Marillia Brocchetto "Reddit's bullies pushed me to fight weight gain", turns out not.

Urban Dick defines "fat logic" as,
The astounding mental gyrations obese people use to justify their size. Fatlogic never, ever includes eating too much and exercising too little.
The notion of anybody "justifying their size" is created by ci/co, something pushed by the 'obesity' crusade.

Herman says,
The term doesn’t mean “fat people’s logic”, but refers to the complex grab bag of supposedly medical facts, well-meaning advice, homegrown ideas and fantasies that make losing weight not only difficult, but impossible.
Dickhead's version is really Nadja's, sans the female performance of 'nice'. Sounds like the usual "fat thinking" trope. I remember being haunted by the notion that I was thinking fat thoughts without knowing it. Like a lot of fatz, I ended up becoming hyper vigilant, trying to catch myself out thinking these thoughts that contradicted my overweening desire to be slim. I wish I was joking.
My main goal is to expose the system of supposed wisdom and well-meant advice about obesity and weight loss as nothing but fat logic, as a vicious circle of fallacies and myths. I intend to do it by taking each individual claim of fat logic that together make up that system and directly debunking them, one by one.
The "system"?

You're still with the reality that dieting itself is not simply punitive but doesn't work? Allow me to go on. Getting hooked on smack is associamafacated with lower risk of ob, buuuuttt, it is pathological, it can lead to your death, (results not typical).

Dieting is pathological, starvation is a way to die and it doesn't work, i.e. it's not effective, two fails for the price of one. Keep that in mind.
For me breaking the cycle was the pivotal change. As a behavioural therapist, I failed to deal with my own weight for years. The reason is that (behavioural) therapy can only work if we recognise which behaviours we need to change, and we are convinced that therapy will be effective and we will be able to make it work. 
"..can only work.....if we are convinced that therapy will be effective and we will be able to make it work." Wouldn't it be easier to just find something fit for the task that has built-in efficacy? Why should we have to bend and twist up ourselves to "make it work" if it already does work? What is its effectiveness beyond us then? And if we are its effectiveness and we are "defective", this is hardly going to end well is it?

What she's claiming is that if y'all will just stop entertaining fatty thoughts, you'll be mad keen (again) on weight loss dieting, just like you were in the good old days. You know you would.

"Lose weight" =starving off weight. Also, "eating behaviour"=eating. She's emphasising the use of "eating behaviour" because the "obesity community" wants it eating to be viewed as behavioural.

Hunger=signal, eating=response.

Tuesday, 8 January 2019

Bye-Bye Weight Mess

Belated Happy New Year. 

What more is to be said about the weight mess?

It all boils down to some rather simple facts. The means we have to reduce body mass-effectively self-induced starvation has proven to be a failure.

This fact although obvious and much commented on, is widely rejected.

That could say it all, except to add something peculiar, professionals wish this failed approach to succeed. In a way, that is the real mystery in all this-why weight loss has to happen through starvation.

You wish to achieve something, fine. You presume it will be in one particular way, okay. It turns out not to be the way, fine. But for some reason, you insist the ends must be achieved via that means and that means alone.

Doesn't make sense.

Why not just find the correct way to achieve it if its so important? Especially when that is your profession's vocation.

That sort of question should always be used to derail any and all weight bollox. Indeed, 2019 is as good a time as any to blow up that bridge. 

This neurosis is being driven by research, science and healthcare professionals. If this was about public prejudice, it would have been done long ago.

Professional status is giving it all this its characteristic validation of unreality.

Many people's brains cannot help but see what is out there in plain sight. It's the conscious, social mind that is going along with the pro's flow.

This denial of truth is a decision.

Few other than those whose with a level of trust so unparallelled in modern society-though many of them my gripe otherwise- could underwrite such an Emperor's New Clothes style suspension of disbelief.

We owe so much to them and their professions, maybe they think we owe them unquestioned submission to this lie as a means of some repayment.

I'm sorry if they've taken this to heart, but not even they cannot make this particular fiction walk with a reality this omnipresent and undeniable. 

Unless there is a counteracting force to equal or surpass this emotional configuration, this mad hatters ball will continue to trundle on, what it has cost us thus far will soon be made small. Attacking the body as if an imagined "disease" has to stop.

It is nothing personal and should not be taken personally by professionals.

We'll have to pay what we owe in some other way.

Monday, 31 December 2018

Your Weight Takes Nothing From You, part II

The neurotic weight as identity premise is what the ob construct and its crusade rests on, if you copy it, you will end up doing the same thing-pathologising weight.

For some reason, people find this difficult to accept. They mis-attribute what is the product of being silenced, for absence of sufficient identifying with your weight. Fact is, IDying with your weight to the extent that is normal for many slimz is abnormal-they'd do well to reconsider. 

A few tweeters spotted the substitution of "thinness" for 'obesity' and complained about it, one in particular, @medicalinguist, nailed the point pretty well...
"Your thinness has taken so much from you" suggests that thin people are "defective" by default.
...for totally the wrong reasons­čść. This is suggestive of how slim people know ob is trash and why, they're just going long with what's wrong.

An astute and sympathetic responder @nomilubin, explains the feelings behind this well,
As a thin person, I find it extremely painful to hear these realities. I don't want them to be true to the point where I can imagine denying them or diminishing them.
This is so on point, and generous, as I know many slim people can and will be-when fat people give them something to go on. It what's driving the professionals too who are abusing their professional sphere to enact this denying and diminishing.

It leads to a key question at the heart of this-what do lay people do when professionals who control and police everyone's understanding and perception of reality-go rogue?

The professionals engaged in this weight jazz, are as we speak trying to trade on an impression of the public as savages full of prejudices that need to be lanced by their enlightened selves, trying to absolve themselves of responsibility. This impression is possibly left by everything from civil rights struggles to scientific advances that challenge people's beliefs.

For some reason I cannot fathom fat activists keep getting on board with this line, positioning the white coats (doctors, when its actually all of them plus sundry sub-clinical types, along with the original quacktastic alt-med contingent) as merely influenced by contact with these lowly issue.

Hell no, it is them driving this, their stamp is all over it. Who decided BMI 30 meant anything? Your fat phobic mother? Who decided people would be deemed "the obese", until people was hyphenated to "obese-people", on-line mras? Which cretins are trying to get other bullshitters to say "with obesity" because it sounds virtue signally?

Why deny this?

The reason I make this point is what's happening doesn't make sense unless it is made clear that ob is a top-down effort and which particular group it is coming from. It's not the law or politics, its medics, researchers, scientists who are messing up.

That needs to be pointed out. 

No one has to confront anyone, but if you cannot tell the truth about who's poisoning the well, how can you stop it? If indeed people do want to put a stop to this mess. Another oddity is this over stating and understating at the same time.

On the one hand, we're oppressed-we aren't, what is really going on is more like "Learned helplessness",
American psychologist Martin Seligman initiated research on learned helplessness in 1967 at the University of Pennsylvania as an extension of his interest in depression. In Part 1 of this study, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group 1 dogs were simply put in a harnesses for a period of time and were later released. Groups 2 and 3 consisted of "yoked pairs". Dogs in Group 2 were given electric shocks at random times, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. Each dog in Group 3 was paired with a Group 2 dog; whenever a Group 2 dog got a shock, its paired dog in Group 3 got a shock of the same intensity and duration, but its lever did not stop the shock. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. Thus, for Group 3 dogs, the shock was "inescapable". 
We are like the group 3 dogs who act like we can't escape, when there isn't anything holding us other than this learned behaviour.

At the same time we suffer bias. Bias? That's when you favour red over yellow, not when you wish to starve people and mutilate their organs, that's malicious assault, that's iatrogenic. Since when do doctors make their 'bias' the subject of a phoney baloney 'science' and insist on "treating" a non-existent disease, i.e. assaulting and damaging health?

How to do self acceptance has already been discovered. Two examples, learning to embrace and acknowledge your own body and pointing out that-diets don't work.

None of these required any input from slim people, professionals, counsellors, dietitians or anyone else. They weren't about moaning about who is or isn't nice, they were about our feelings and our needs based on our histories.

The first is about restoring or even introducing a normal reaction to your body and your size, the latter was reality-testing.

Fat people need to learn that we have to dismantle the rubbish we've been taught, not so much internalisation as a single voice and mode of expression we were all taught. We have to unearth our own voice and that will not come from constructing a social justice frame that isn't really there.

Slim people will turn up for us, when we turn up for ourselves.

What's stopping us from pointing out that the professionals have failed? That we turned up for do it yourself, i.e. "personal responsibility"? What's stopping us from stating facts, barracking, bullying, insults, yes, I get that, but that's always been there. It didn't stop us from starting. It's we who keep stopping ourselves when we get any momentum.

People were told, if you jump on this "body positive" bandwagon, you will not be served by it. We were brushed off, because anything slim people do is where it's at. That warning turned out to be correct.

Finding our buried voices is what fat acceptance or w/e you wish to call it should be about. This is what "speak the truth to power" means. Our continued silence aides those who are doing us dirty. Only enter the ob fictionalisations, to lead trace a path from there to the truth, this is not a debate, this is (largely) fiction versus truth.