Genuine sympathy brings home the hollowness of four decades of circling round a thought-terminating void. Intelligent and compassionate people like Clare Allan are in such a muddle about fat people. And well done sub-editor for so ably reflecting her tone, with a photo of chips + curry sauce-pure class.
First off, what dehumanizes is constructing whole human beings as slim people wearing a suit of their own adiposity, or what's idiotically deemed-'obese'/ 'obesity'. The compulsive tic of using these tiresome terms to put a block on calling people, people is unwarranted and unasked for. To all and sundry, kindly cease and desist.
Fat people are PEOPLE, try using that again.
If anyone thinks they're better than people, let them call themselves something that reflects their presumed supernatural better-than-people superiority.
Secondly Cameron and gang are not bullying fat people, they're using the stigma of a construct to bully disabled people-who happen to be fat. Again, this habit of re-classifying people with a dehumanzing block in place of their humanness drops the mind into a pit it struggles to get out of.
Exactly who is claiming disability benefit/s for being fat? No seriously media mavens, fact check this. I'll bet, virtually no-one. Any more than anyone's claiming disability benefits for being slim. And even if they are, they deserve it. For decades it has been clear diets do not work for anybody. Not for 'obese' not for thin people losing 2 or 3 lbs over and over and over again.
A slim disabled person is claiming because they're disabled not because they're slim-though as you can see, you could say that if you wished to be silly. That this kind of bamboozle feels so right, shows just how much the catastrophizing etc., of the 'obesity' cult has warped judgement.
Folks keep making this basic error of allowing their minds to be directed to people's weight, rather than their state. Thus unwittingly enabling this kind of targeting. Disability doesn't only affect slim people, fatness doesn't give you immunity from the same disabilities as slimmer people.
Even if you can say, this person is top-weight and not very mobile [that doesn't stop them working] discrimination might though, the issue is the "science of obesity" hasn't yet deemed it of interest to find ways to stem the process of adipogenesis-the creation of fat cells/tissue.
Weight is an outcome of a process, it is not "disease" nor is it an eating disorder nor "addiction" or "mental illness." That people cannot tell this is proof of how loose those terms have become and how quickly this undermines civil liberties.
People do not "eat themselves up to x" anymore than they eat themselves into slimness.
Hunger is innate signalling-with respect, the urge for a smoke, alcohol, or drugs isn't. Whatever triggers of weight-gain a person has, can set off an underlying conjunction of metabolic processes. Eating is a normal response to a metabolic cue, not an addiction-that's your calorie restriction/proto-anorexia programming talking through you. Heightened hunger is symptom, not cause.
Everyone responds the same way to hunger, we eat. Normalizing hunger signalling is the way to deal with an excess of it. Just as normalizing the signalling relieve your bladder is the way to restore continence. Not sewing up the end of your urethra.
It doesn't matter what process you are talking about, if you cannot switch it off-at some point it will cause trouble, no matter how benign.
Excess intake of water can and has killed people. Obviously, the off button on that is clear. This decision that's been consistently repeated, worldwide, in the face of unceasing evidence to the contrary means that people's only possibility of reversing their weight is via calorie restriction dieting, whether enhanced by drugs, surgery etc.,
The lack of efficacy of this approach has to stand as it is. That is not the fault of fat people. I think you'll find most fault lays with those who thought they knew better than fat people. They were wrong. They need to deal with that.
Mental health is a side issue for fat people-ditto for many drug addicts and alcoholics too come to think of it. What is required are effective rather than ineffective means of reversal of underlying states. If people want counselling after that, good luck. If counselling cured alcoholism, drug addiction and reversed weight, we'd have all noticed that by now.
What all these have in common is the punitive hatefuelled, stigmatizing approach has been willingly pursued. That approach is a pathology producing cul-de-sac [trans. arse bag.] All you can do is get out of it wash out the stink and start pursuing objective science.
If society choose to indulge the urge for endless ceaseless death wielding punishment- it will have to pay for the mess that creates. If it doesn't want to pay-excellent, cue the end of stigma, pathology, quackery and delusion- bring on the beautiful truth.
More in need of mental health intervention are those who so need to punish others, that they cannot let go of that, even if it costs others their lives. There's something sick and sinister about them. I'd say if we spent some of the mental health budget on that, society could unchain the anchor of their bitter loathing and enter a new golden age of progress.