Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

I don't support the fat acceptance/plus size movement.

145791019

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    There have already been cops who sued over fitness tests, and a firefighter who sued because she failed the course and claimed that it was discriminatory against women.

    Codifying protection for obesity into law will exacerbate this problem.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,307 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.

    I can think of cases where it would, though.

    Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.

    Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.

    Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.

    *Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
  • bobshuckleberry
    bobshuckleberry Posts: 281 Member

    Unfortunately in the US where government pays over half the cost of healthcare it's all taxpayers problem..

    The government does not pay any of my healthcare.
    Wow, you have to be accepting of who you are to embrace and love who you are. I am an example of being plus sized and healthy.
    Personally if I was not confident in myself and I saw this thread I would feel like this was an unaccepting place where I had no place being.
    How many people do you think this thread has discouraged. Several I am sure.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.

    My position is based on my actual experience hiring and supervising people in kitchens and warehouses, some of whom have been protected by various existing anti-discrimination laws. An anti-discrimination law doesn't change the fact that jobs can have fitness tests related to the demands of the job and it doesn't change the fact that employers can outline essential functions of the job that applicants must be able to perform.

    If you're determined to dismiss actual experience, law, and current practices as "alternative reality," I guess there isn't much basis for this conversation to continue. I wish you the best.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    edited May 2017
    stealthq wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.

    I can think of cases where it would, though.

    Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.

    Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.

    Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.

    *Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.

    Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).

    Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).

    I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.

    Actually, it's easy to legislate to provide for one or the other.

    Our antidiscrimination laws were held by the SC to allow for claims based on disparate impact, which is why some things had to be adjusted based on discriminatory effect (I don't think the military was forced to by the courts as generally it is given huge deference, but I have not specifically looked into it -- more likely it decided to make the changes, as it decided to allow women into various positions).

    Anyway, if Congress had wanted to, it could amend the legislation to say "disparate impact is not a violation" or "this does not prohibit genuine job requirements -- at the complete discretion of the employer -- that would have a discriminatory effect" or some such.

    Indeed, genuine job requirements are permitted even with disparate impact, you just need to be able to show that they really are needed (which is a burden on the employer and therefore I would generally not expand the categories under which it would have to justify this to a court without strong reason -- I think there was and is reason with such things as race and sex discrimination, but do not wrt weight).
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,307 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.

    I can think of cases where it would, though.

    Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.

    Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.

    Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.

    *Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.

    Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).

    Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).

    I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.

    I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.

    I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,903 Member
    edited May 2017
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.

    I can think of cases where it would, though.

    Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.

    Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.

    Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.

    *Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.

    Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).

    Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).

    I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.

    I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.

    I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?

    Or maybe jockey? I mean, doesn't everyone know that it's preferable to be shorter/lighter? I don't think they get a lot of 6'5 300lb linebacker types applying to race horses... It's all part of the performance requirements of the job.

    ETA, I see that's already been covered. Skimming! :blush:
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,903 Member
    Ruatine wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?

    That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.

    What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.

    As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.

    The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.

    In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.

    policemen? firemen?

    Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.

    I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?

    But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.

    I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.

    All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.

    Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.

    I can think of cases where it would, though.

    Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.

    Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.

    Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.

    *Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.

    Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).

    Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).

    I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.

    I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.

    I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?

    Or maybe jockey? I mean, doesn't everyone know that it's preferable to be shorter/lighter? I don't think they get a lot of 6'5 300lb linebacker types applying to race horses... It's all part of the performance requirements of the job.

    You mean there are no sumo jockeys?! Say it ain't so!

    That poor horse :astonished:
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,142 Member
    ...A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit...

    That phrase just grosses me out. Makes me think of Silence of the Lambs. Don't look at the spoiler below if you're squeamish.

    v4aahbp1xei4.jpg
  • mca90guitar
    mca90guitar Posts: 290 Member
    Idk when I was 220 at my last physical all my tests came back great. The issues I do have are not weight related at all and I know I'm way more athletic then alot of my skinny my friends.

    That being said, I don't want to be fat and will fix that. I do not just want to be healthy, I want to look it and feel it more when I'm mountain biking, kayaking and hiking.

    That said idc how others live, wish some of my family members would try as well to get in better shape but it's their lives and you can't force them.
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,562 Member
    edited May 2017
    The problem, as I see it, is that people who do have extra weight are often treated as "less than". They're often judged as unhealthy at a glance (which is not always the case), are treated differently because of perceived limitations, and many people look at them with disgust in their eyes.

    Even if a person WANTS to change, if they're taught to hate themselves for having extra weight - and that self-hatred is inherently success limiting. The brain, when exposed to negative thoughts, goes into self-defense mode. Self defense mode inhibits a person's ability to dream, to grow, to change. If we teach people to hate themselves into changing, we're teaching them to inhibit their ability to change and then beating them up when they don't succeed.

    In my opinion.. the "fat acceptance" movement is NOT about fat acceptance as much as self-love. A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit. "Sexy" is not limited to a certain body fat percentage. Worthiness isn't either. Once you can look at yourself in the mirror and love who you are, you free yourself into opening up all the possibilities of who you CAN BECOME - on so many different planes.

    I support learning to love yourself as you are. I support learning to see yourself as beautiful / handsome / wonderful regardless of the measurement your waistline. I support personal growth. I reject the idea of judging someone because they take up a different volume of space than I do.

    People up to class 1 obesity are the norm now in the US, they are not taught to hate themselves. This discussion is mostly about people who are class 3 obese, and they are statistically more unhealthy.

    By default what is physically beautiful or sexy must be reflected in physicality, pretending otherwise is inane. You can't force the world to unilaterally adopt rubenesque values of beauty.
This discussion has been closed.