I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about Dr. Sarah Jackson insisting weight should become a protected category included in anti-discrimination law. You may say, brava, well meaning. Jackson tells everyone including doctors to stop the hate against fat people.
Except that this trivializes racism and other discrimination, whilst mostly overlooking the root cause promoting discrimination against fat people.
If you want to end discrimination against fat people, stop telling lies about human biology. Stop making this a question of humanities rather than science. Weight is product of a process you don't understand nor can reliably manipulate to reverse said outcome.
Concentrate on getting that done, start with those who's weight gain is linked to things like brain tumours or chronic conditions and remember this is not only about them. It's about better treatments for all sorts of things, given the wide-ranging nature of metabolic function.
Stop defining people as disease or with fake "identities" such as @bese and @overweight. And stop conflating weight loss with weight loss dieting and claiming the latter works- it does not.
All this will do more than any law.
In fact, dismantle the construction of 'obesity' as a field of study-it's clearly divisive and pointless. Stick to studying weight as part of metabolic science as that is what this is really about. Its the crude social engineering that's creating division and discrimination. The rogue sociology.
The pretext for this sounding is the second of couple of uh....studies, you may remember the first.
The upshot is shaming fat people should now stop. Not because its ethically wrong, causes harm to human beings, cheapening those participating in bullying, but because it "doesn't work". Meaning it a) doesn't enable proto-anorexia and b) it (purportedly) increases instances of eating calorie dense grub, and the likelihood of future fatness.
I can see that this could be seen as a more effective appeal to fat phobes motivations. Undermining fat people's mental and physical health could never have been solely about making fat people slim. In order for something to be for a certain end, you must have a clear idea of what that end is. Seeking to use and generate negativity cannot be for positive ends. The momentum and power of negativity takes on a life of its own, takes over the wheel and ends up driving you. It becomes the end.
The identity of slimness with its attendant halo also gets in the way. If anyone can be slim, that loses currency. The urge is to sabotage reversal of weight. Maintain an increasing source of vanity. This is hardly predictable, but it has been evident enough for a while.
Replacing opprobrium with "support" i.e. coercion is the same mis-use of terms, legal protection which would entrench this faux identity of weight. What's required is genuine application of objective science and intellect a removal of lies and falsehoods. We need rational thought to be restored.
If this campaign for anorexia-by-proxy was about weight reversal, it would have been stopped decades ago without much say so from us. Science would have made way more inroads in how to actually achieve this properly. It may have done it by now, though nothing is promised. It just strikes me as doable in a way that other things that have been done seem less so.
i.e. In real disease news there was recently a drug was being publicized that decreased sharply the transmission of HIV from positive to non-infected partner in certain conditions.Who would have predicted that when we were reminded, no virus has been cured?
That didn't come about by insisting people wear condoms for sexual intercourse.
Objective science, not social engineering. Is anyone really going to tell me that finding a 'vaccine' against HIV is easier than stabilizing a person's weight? Or reversing hunger? Let alone weight? There's a clear lack of desire at the heart of this.
The picture being shouted against-'obesity' timebomb zomg is exactly what is being perpetuated. It helps if instead of seeing this as a position-@besity's bad let's get rid of it, versus a target, all people slim. Step back and see the whole as a tableau. It's all part of parts. The desire is to keep this going, with no endpoint, just continued repetition of the same as the last 40 years.
On the one hand fat people are treated as a distinct class-a wholly bogus confection (yes) of the 'obesity' crusade which depends on the absence of genuine weight reversal. At the same time as being a staunch advocate for "weight loss" meaning calorie restriction which equals the same as up to now.
The previous very weak study in describing "obesity promoting behaviours" listed "refusal to diet" that's right, saying no to neuroses; increased energy conservation, rebound weight gain, hyperphagia, binge eating, bulimia nervosa, depression and possibly bringing on some forms of diabetes, is what promotes 'obesity'.
Now I recognize this sentence: "Instead fat people must restrict calories and waste energy, because that will ensure a continued fat class to be discriminated against" might sound "eliminatory." That's something I can't answer fully here. All I will say is that if you use the framework of the 'obesity' construct to decide your views, no matter how FA you are, you'll end up with a weird symmetry of agreement with it.
Fat people are not the "opposite" of slim people.
I just saw someone who wrote that she argued with someone else for praising fat women's sexual abilities. This was interpreted as a slight-bullying against slim women. Polarity. Like male being seen as the "opposite" or female.
I long since left the latter behind and I'm not on board with the former either. Fat people are not as different from slim people as we can seem from the outside. That might be behind "headless fatties" tending to be outliers. The majority of @beses let alone @verweighties do not look "opposite" what's defined as the norm, which is also not as slim as it imagines.
Just because words are in opposition, doesn't mean those words used to define human ( or other animal) traits that people are by that, set in "opposition" to each other.
Being fat or slim makes little difference to the essence of you. How we define each other does because it often dictates how we treat each other. Weight division is a tool of the crusade. Some in FA are perhaps inadvertently taking that on, as that's where their heads have been put by that very crusade's mal-logic.
My attitude is and has always been differences don't fall across any weight categorizations. "Weight loss" as in calorie restriction dieting and its epic failure just adds a sense that we are looking across a massive biological chasm.
Far from wishing to eliminate us the 'obesity' cultists are in two minds. Their actions though speak to wishing to establish division using weight.
Always note, does this differ from anything they've been telling us to do before?
Though the approach may change on the surface, the answer is no.