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.
Is the 'fat acceptance' movement a good thing?
Options
Replies
-
I think shaming others is wrong, but I definitely do NOT accept and even get pissed about it. I see a fat parent leading a fat child and I wonder "medical problem or neglect" every time.2
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
Maybe just semantics but I wouldn't consider protection from discrimination the same thing as granting special privilege. Protection from discrimination is like saying a store can't kick out handicapped persons. Special privilege would be handicapped persons are allowed to shop an hour earlier than everyone else. Or are granted an extra discount. At least, that's how I would define those terms.
Special privilege as a protected class is what I should have said.
My whole premise here is that obesity is a condition that is self-inflicted.
Look, short men are turned down for jobs and discriminated against in that regard as well.
Should they be given special protection against discrimination under the law?
That would make them a protected class and give them special privilege.
Editing to add further rambling thoughts. So far, anti-discrimination legislation is geared towards things like race, age, gender, and disability. The common thread among all of these is that they are all things which cannot be changed.
Being obese is a self-inflicted and maintained condition that though being difficult to face, can be changed. This isn't the solution. Giving up on the obese and granting them protection as a class under civil rights law is furthering the sea of voices who think it's just hunky dory to be 300 or more pounds (all of these people are young-ish, btw) because they're "fierce" and don't want to deal with the real issues they face with food.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, tbh I'm not sure how I feel about that issue. I can see both sides. Dangers of being a moderate. I just prefer precise language, whenever possible.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
In many cases obesity - in particular morbid obesity - makes patients unsafe candidates for general anaesthetic and surgery with a greatly increased chance of dying during surgery or post operatively.
Unless the need for surgery (emergency/lifesaving) outweighs the risk of death surgeons simply will not operate, nor is it appropriate to do so.
7 -
In light of the facts about world hunger, that 1 in 9 people are severely undernourished, and many other staggering facts about poverty and hunger, I find this "fat acceptance" to be yet another way for first world people to feel OK about hogging the lion's share of the world's resources.
There are children who eat maybe once a day their entire short lives. And we sit around making sure we eat 5 times a day so our blood glucose doesn't crash. Being overweight is unhealthy. Celebrating it is a slap in the face to all the poor people suffering in the world today. If only we could all do with a little less. Myself included!
10 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
Well this actually happened to me at Disney World. A female and her kids got on the transportation bus. Myself and my brother in law, were both sitting and we both got up to let the female sit down. She chose his spot (which was beside me). I was at the end of the seat (bench seats) and she sat to my left. Every time the bus driver stopped she slid into me and pressed me into the end of the bench. And she was well over 250lbs. Not discriminating, but it was an uncomfortable ride all the way to our hotel.I think it's good in the fact that it promotes not being a total *kitten* to someone because they are fat. I mean really, how does someone else being fat affect me?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Heehee I've had broad shouldered men (my husband is one of them) and man spread men sitting next to me and I'm not a fan of stranger man thigh all over me (most times):).
Not saying you aren't being correct and honest about uncomfortableness but it happens sometimes even with non obese folks.
He might be "obese" in other areas that require more room *hinthintwinkwink*.4 -
lulufee317537 wrote: »In light of the facts about world hunger, that 1 in 9 people are severely undernourished, and many other staggering facts about poverty and hunger, I find this "fat acceptance" to be yet another way for first world people to feel OK about hogging the lion's share of the world's resources.
I seriously doubt fat people "hog" a significantly higher portion of the world's resources than thin or just not fat people do in countries like the US.
Also, the alleged bias or shaming or what have you (which I think goes on -- variety of things from the class tinged people of Walmart stuff to various health-conscious left leaning people I know or observe being willing to use fat as a basis to mock people/politicians they disagree with, when the same people would be scrupulously PC about numerous other ways of mocking someone, to people of a different political leaning that I know or observe doing the same, often to dismiss women who state an opinion in particular). And it all gets justified as "well, health is important." And this by people who, of course, use just as many of the world's resources.
I am not in favor of the FA/HAES movement as it seems to exist politically (I am in favor of body positivity or whatever, and think not shaming people and not being rude to people is basic human politeness that too many ignore). However, the attempts to twist being basically rude or judgmental of others based on appearance into some kind of moral good blows my mind.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
In many cases obesity - in particular morbid obesity - makes patients unsafe candidates for general anaesthetic and surgery with a greatly increased chance of dying during surgery or post operatively.
Unless the need for surgery (emergency/lifesaving) outweighs the risk of death surgeons simply will not operate, nor is it appropriate to do so.
This is the problem with the cries of anti-discrimination. The cases of surgery "denial" are really risk assessment deemed to be not appropriate.
The other surgeries being commonly denied to the morbidly obese without weight loss are joint replacements. Why?That issue is twofold. In addition to the anesthesia, the manufacturer puts a weight limit on the joint.
Speaking as a person with two forms of arthritis, I'm frankly baffled by the mentality of people with the condition who want to rush to a surgical intervention for it without addressing the underlying cause and not only that, cry to the government to protect them from "big medicine" for denying them a cure for what "they'd tell thin people to do". Exercise and weight management ARE part and parcel of any arthritis diagnosis. Insisting on "weight neutral" medical approaches is NOT asking to not be discriminated against. It's ignoring medical fact.5 -
I should add a post here that I've read a lot of editorials from fat acceptance writers and a lot of the stuff in my posts in these threads comes from the information I've learned there.
There is a vast, gaping difference between being body positive and the political arm of the Fat Acceptance movement and what they're trying to do and why they're trying to do it.
I want to be very clear I am all for body positivity. I am firmly against organized Fat Acceptance.4 -
fattymcrunnerpants wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
Agreed, "special treatment", to me, indicates options that aren't or shouldn't be available to everyone. Access to medical care, and equal treatment in job performance is not special treatment.
I'll never in my life forget what a surgeon said to me after removing part of my thyroid. I had gone to him as I had a tumor growing on it. While I was in the hospital he told me that he hadn't made an effort to hide the large scar because I was "Fat, unattractive and didn't deserve to have the scar hidden". Surgeons USEUALLY try to cut along the neck folds to hide an obvious scar. I made a complaint to the hospital board but since I'm not a protected class nothing happened. That kind of behavior is not OK at all.
Wow. Your experience takes my breath away. I'm so sorry that happened to you.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
That promotion story was sketchy as all get out in the first place, imo. It's straight out of a tumblr fantasy.
How exactly do you prove that a fat person was passed over for a job promotion?
Medical treatment? See the post above yours. They want treatment that is not safe at their weight. They want treatment that they don't fit the equipment for.
I have read countless tales on reddit from nurses and doctors who have cared for the very, very obese (think over 400 pounds) who have explained in clinical detail exactly why it's these services aren't provided and why weight loss needs to happen.
It's not discrimination. It's a safety issue.
I imagine you'd prove it the same way one would prove an age, racial, or gender discrimination case. The fact that discrimination may be challenging to prove isn't a justification for ignoring it when it is happening.
If someone wants treatment that isn't safe at their weight, that's one thing. But I know personally know someone who was denied treatment for a skin condition due to weight -- the doctor said there wasn't any point in treating the condition in someone who wasn't taking care of themselves. The treatment for the skin condition wasn't riskier due to weight (my friend got a second opinion and was able to get his treatment). I am sure the anecdotes you've read on reddit are accurate for the experiences of those recounting them. But consider that there may be other experiences, ones that you aren't seeing on reddit.
Please don't mistake me for advocating for something that I'm not. If a procedure isn't safe for someone due to an underlying condition that should be taken into account.3 -
lulufee317537 wrote: »In light of the facts about world hunger, that 1 in 9 people are severely undernourished, and many other staggering facts about poverty and hunger, I find this "fat acceptance" to be yet another way for first world people to feel OK about hogging the lion's share of the world's resources.
There are children who eat maybe once a day their entire short lives. And we sit around making sure we eat 5 times a day so our blood glucose doesn't crash. Being overweight is unhealthy. Celebrating it is a slap in the face to all the poor people suffering in the world today. If only we could all do with a little less. Myself included!
By this logic, celebrating running a marathon is also a slap in the face of poor people. People consume many more calories than they would otherwise need in order to train for athletic events that are optional. If I was sedentary, I would need about 1,460 calories a day to maintain my weight. But due to my activity, I eat 1,900-2,200 calories a day.
There's no moral difference that I can tell between eating extra calories to support excess body weight and eating extra calories to enjoy recreational fitness activities.7 -
lulufee317537 wrote: »In light of the facts about world hunger, that 1 in 9 people are severely undernourished, and many other staggering facts about poverty and hunger, I find this "fat acceptance" to be yet another way for first world people to feel OK about hogging the lion's share of the world's resources.
There are children who eat maybe once a day their entire short lives. And we sit around making sure we eat 5 times a day so our blood glucose doesn't crash. Being overweight is unhealthy. Celebrating it is a slap in the face to all the poor people suffering in the world today. If only we could all do with a little less. Myself included!
I get your point, but the root cause of poverty and hunger is not the abundance of Western lifestyle. You doing with a little less is not going to solve the instability and corruption of the third world.7 -
My perspective is a little different as I work in healthcare. I've seen many patients who from the outside appear to be fat and unhealthy to others, but are in more physical shape than someone who's thin. Sometimes, people have extra weight on them due to an under-active thyroid or medications (i.e. prednisone which will make you gain weight and a lot of it).
I can only speak for myself, but I feel if someone is okay with being overweight, it's their prerogative as I am not one to judge. At one point, I was one of those people who accepted being overweight until I couldn't accept it for myself anymore and decided to do something about it. As a people we should accept people for who they are and not judge as no woman/man is perfect or better than the next, but it's human nature to judge.4 -
RaeBeeBaby wrote: »carolyn000000 wrote: »I have been very thin (128lbs and 5'8) and very fat (over 210 lbs.) Currently I am at 172; my highest weight in 6 years. I was hanging around 160 up until the holidays. I can still pull off a size 10 because I am very toned. At 128 there were people who hated me. Fat people can be downright nasty to skinny people. At 210, I felt more accepted by most people, but there were those who clearly thought I was disgusting. My own father said an overweight woman ( meaning me) is worthless, so I better lose it.
Currently, I work with mostly obese people. They leave me out of their lunch plans when they go to McDonalds with their coupons and then go eat in a different room and leave me to eat by myself. At first I thought, "That's not very nice, I am not judging them." But after I thought about it, I had to admit I do judge them. I mean it is hard not to think when you see an obese person eating a big mac and fries with a coke, "What are you doing!" But I would never in anyway let on that I think that. Basically, they make me uncomfortable, and I make them uncomfortable. So I will just have to be lonely at work. I wonder if that is why I subconsciously gained so much over the holidays.
Everyone wants to fit in. Sometimes I find myself eating the junk at work and minimizing my healthy lifestyle. I pretend I am going to go get a piece of cake "later". I guess I just need to do what I need to do and forget about what every one else thinks.
This was me exactly. When I was surrounded by obese people at work (probably 70%) I felt like the outcast. Sitting at my desk eating my salad. One time they sent a sheet around for pizza orders and skipped me entirely. I eat pizza. I got over it. As far as cake and goodies, I would just skip them but people still will bring you a piece because "you just have to try it". I'd graciously accept and then toss it out when nobody was looking. Should I have said NO outright? Probably, but nobody wants to hurt someone's feelings.
Keep doing the right thing for yourself and find acceptance elsewhere.
That is what I usually do.. Take and toss. Except today it was a Krispy Creme donut..... Extra time at the gym I guess!2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
That promotion story was sketchy as all get out in the first place, imo. It's straight out of a tumblr fantasy.
How exactly do you prove that a fat person was passed over for a job promotion?
Medical treatment? See the post above yours. They want treatment that is not safe at their weight. They want treatment that they don't fit the equipment for.
I have read countless tales on reddit from nurses and doctors who have cared for the very, very obese (think over 400 pounds) who have explained in clinical detail exactly why it's these services aren't provided and why weight loss needs to happen.
It's not discrimination. It's a safety issue.
I imagine you'd prove it the same way one would prove an age, racial, or gender discrimination case. The fact that discrimination may be challenging to prove isn't a justification for ignoring it when it is happening.
If someone wants treatment that isn't safe at their weight, that's one thing. But I know personally know someone who was denied treatment for a skin condition due to weight -- the doctor said there wasn't any point in treating the condition in someone who wasn't taking care of themselves. The treatment for the skin condition wasn't riskier due to weight (my friend got a second opinion and was able to get his treatment). I am sure the anecdotes you've read on reddit are accurate for the experiences of those recounting them. But consider that there may be other experiences, ones that you aren't seeing on reddit.
Please don't mistake me for advocating for something that I'm not. If a procedure isn't safe for someone due to an underlying condition that should be taken into account.
Everyone has experiences with idiot doctors. They don't need protection under the law to pursue a second opinion.
Legislating this will increase medical costs, insurance costs and is not necessary for these cases like your friend. I can assure you that the thinking of the movement and the push behind this legislation is thus:
Weight is neutral. Body size is something that comes in diversity, just as skin color does. Society needs to ebmrace that and accommodate that.
For further reading, please see this web site. While their mission statement gives lip service to ending discrimination, you need to look under the hood as to what they consider to be discrimination.
https://www.sizediversityandhealth.org/
Legislating for this kind of stuff is a slippery slope, because I believe it would promote the backwards thinking that underlies the Fat Acceptance movement regarding obesity.
As I stated earlier, this is not the way to address the issues these people are facing.1 -
I think that the obsession we have with political correctness fuels an almost fanatical aversion to judging others, and therefore enables obesity. Combine that with the misconception that medical problems, genetics, and/or “slow metabolism” cause an inordinate amount of obesity and you have an environment where people sort of accept it as the way that it is. Feelings aside, this is crippling and killing millions of people who are enabled to remain in unhealthy conditions and suffer the medical consequences accordingly.1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
That promotion story was sketchy as all get out in the first place, imo. It's straight out of a tumblr fantasy.
How exactly do you prove that a fat person was passed over for a job promotion?
Medical treatment? See the post above yours. They want treatment that is not safe at their weight. They want treatment that they don't fit the equipment for.
I have read countless tales on reddit from nurses and doctors who have cared for the very, very obese (think over 400 pounds) who have explained in clinical detail exactly why it's these services aren't provided and why weight loss needs to happen.
It's not discrimination. It's a safety issue.
I imagine you'd prove it the same way one would prove an age, racial, or gender discrimination case. The fact that discrimination may be challenging to prove isn't a justification for ignoring it when it is happening.
If someone wants treatment that isn't safe at their weight, that's one thing. But I know personally know someone who was denied treatment for a skin condition due to weight -- the doctor said there wasn't any point in treating the condition in someone who wasn't taking care of themselves. The treatment for the skin condition wasn't riskier due to weight (my friend got a second opinion and was able to get his treatment). I am sure the anecdotes you've read on reddit are accurate for the experiences of those recounting them. But consider that there may be other experiences, ones that you aren't seeing on reddit.
Please don't mistake me for advocating for something that I'm not. If a procedure isn't safe for someone due to an underlying condition that should be taken into account.
Everyone has experiences with idiot doctors. They don't need protection under the law to pursue a second opinion.
Legislating this will increase medical costs, insurance costs and is not necessary for these cases like your friend. I can assure you that the thinking of the movement and the push behind this legislation is thus:
Weight is neutral. Body size is something that comes in diversity, just as skin color does. Society needs to ebmrace that and accommodate that.
For further reading, please see this web site. While their mission statement gives lip service to ending discrimination, you need to look under the hood as to what they consider to be discrimination.
https://www.sizediversityandhealth.org/
Legislating for this kind of stuff is a slippery slope, because I believe it would promote the backwards thinking that underlies the Fat Acceptance movement regarding obesity.
As I stated earlier, this is not the way to address the issues these people are facing.
I appreciate that you wish to educate me, but I'm acquainted with the goals and perspective of the Fat Acceptance movement.
Yes, people can seek second opinions. But should doctors be denying medical care to people based on their weight (when the weight itself isn't a factor that will make a surgery/treatment more risky)? I have an opinion on this, you may have a different opinion. My opinion isn't based in ignorance of the situation.
Writing someone a prescription for a skin condition isn't "embracing" a condition, it's practicing medicine. Why should a fat person have to go to doctor after doctor to get adequate treatment? That medical professionals should provide a basic standard of care isn't "backwards thinking" in my view.
Weight isn't neutral in all cases. But if a doctor would write a prescription for a thin person with a skin condition and refuse to write the same prescription for a larger person strictly due to weight (again, not potential complications or risks, but just a feeling about fat people) . . . that's weight playing a role that it shouldn't play.
Same with jobs. If someone is passed over for a promotion or refused a job simply due to their weight and not their ability to do a job, that's weight playing a role that it shouldn't play. Some of the most competent and impressive people I work with are overweight or obese. In many jobs, it just isn't a relevant factor. Why shouldn't weight be neutral in those cases?
If that's backwards thinking, then I'll be backward.4 -
There is a difference in being healthy at any size and being healthier at any size.
Being fat is never going to be good for your overall health.
However, if you are fat and you engage in these four activities:
* Eat "healthy" food
* Don't smoke
* Exercise 3 times a week
* Don't drink alcohol
Then your mortality rate will be on par with someone who is not obese. In fact if you can only hit 2 of the above your mortality rate is very close to non-obese people.
But this only speaks to *mortality rate*. Not other aspects of being healthy.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
That promotion story was sketchy as all get out in the first place, imo. It's straight out of a tumblr fantasy.
How exactly do you prove that a fat person was passed over for a job promotion?
Medical treatment? See the post above yours. They want treatment that is not safe at their weight. They want treatment that they don't fit the equipment for.
I have read countless tales on reddit from nurses and doctors who have cared for the very, very obese (think over 400 pounds) who have explained in clinical detail exactly why it's these services aren't provided and why weight loss needs to happen.
It's not discrimination. It's a safety issue.
I imagine you'd prove it the same way one would prove an age, racial, or gender discrimination case. The fact that discrimination may be challenging to prove isn't a justification for ignoring it when it is happening.
If someone wants treatment that isn't safe at their weight, that's one thing. But I know personally know someone who was denied treatment for a skin condition due to weight -- the doctor said there wasn't any point in treating the condition in someone who wasn't taking care of themselves. The treatment for the skin condition wasn't riskier due to weight (my friend got a second opinion and was able to get his treatment). I am sure the anecdotes you've read on reddit are accurate for the experiences of those recounting them. But consider that there may be other experiences, ones that you aren't seeing on reddit.
Please don't mistake me for advocating for something that I'm not. If a procedure isn't safe for someone due to an underlying condition that should be taken into account.
Everyone has experiences with idiot doctors. They don't need protection under the law to pursue a second opinion.
Legislating this will increase medical costs, insurance costs and is not necessary for these cases like your friend. I can assure you that the thinking of the movement and the push behind this legislation is thus:
Weight is neutral. Body size is something that comes in diversity, just as skin color does. Society needs to ebmrace that and accommodate that.
For further reading, please see this web site. While their mission statement gives lip service to ending discrimination, you need to look under the hood as to what they consider to be discrimination.
https://www.sizediversityandhealth.org/
Legislating for this kind of stuff is a slippery slope, because I believe it would promote the backwards thinking that underlies the Fat Acceptance movement regarding obesity.
As I stated earlier, this is not the way to address the issues these people are facing.
I appreciate that you wish to educate me, but I'm acquainted with the goals and perspective of the Fat Acceptance movement.
Yes, people can seek second opinions. But should doctors be denying medical care to people based on their weight (when the weight itself isn't a factor that will make a surgery/treatment more risky)? I have an opinion on this, you may have a different opinion. My opinion isn't based in ignorance of the situation.
Writing someone a prescription for a skin condition isn't "embracing" a condition, it's practicing medicine. Why should a fat person have to go to doctor after doctor to get adequate treatment? That medical professionals should provide a basic standard of care isn't "backwards thinking" in my view.
Weight isn't neutral in all cases. But if a doctor would write a prescription for a thin person with a skin condition and refuse to write the same prescription for a larger person strictly due to weight (again, not potential complications or risks, but just a feeling about fat people) . . . that's weight playing a role that it shouldn't play.
Same with jobs. If someone is passed over for a promotion or refused a job simply due to their weight and not their ability to do a job, that's weight playing a role that it shouldn't play. Some of the most competent and impressive people I work with are overweight or obese. In many jobs, it just isn't a relevant factor. Why shouldn't weight be neutral in those cases?
If that's backwards thinking, then I'll be backward.
I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist. There are definitely doctors (in fact I believe there's hard data out there on this, I'm pretty sure I've seen a statistic quoted on it) out there who admit that they have trouble with obese people, and sometimes it's with good reason, because they're often not compliant with their own health care, much in the way smokers are. The answer to people who continued to smoke against medical advice wasn't to accommodate smokers, it was to find ways to deal with the smoking problem. I feel the same way about obesity.
I don't believe that we can legislated against every bias people encounter, and especially in this case since it's a self-inflicted condition that a person often chooses to remain in. I think this is a slippery slope society should not start down and that there are other avenues for people wronged by idiots can pursue.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Legislation has been attempted to be introduced in one Canadian province along the lines of the granting the obese special privilege.
Which one? And what are they trying to do? Do you have a link to this (please)? I'm curious.
Thanks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-liberals-weight-human-rights-1.3864788
From the article: "Lindsey Mazur, a dietitian, said some overweight people she works with are being denied surgeries and other care unless they lose weight first. In the workforce, some people are losing out on promotions because of their weight, she added."
This sounds like they want equal access to medical treatment and job opportunities, not special privileges.
That promotion story was sketchy as all get out in the first place, imo. It's straight out of a tumblr fantasy.
How exactly do you prove that a fat person was passed over for a job promotion?
Medical treatment? See the post above yours. They want treatment that is not safe at their weight. They want treatment that they don't fit the equipment for.
I have read countless tales on reddit from nurses and doctors who have cared for the very, very obese (think over 400 pounds) who have explained in clinical detail exactly why it's these services aren't provided and why weight loss needs to happen.
It's not discrimination. It's a safety issue.
I imagine you'd prove it the same way one would prove an age, racial, or gender discrimination case. The fact that discrimination may be challenging to prove isn't a justification for ignoring it when it is happening.
If someone wants treatment that isn't safe at their weight, that's one thing. But I know personally know someone who was denied treatment for a skin condition due to weight -- the doctor said there wasn't any point in treating the condition in someone who wasn't taking care of themselves. The treatment for the skin condition wasn't riskier due to weight (my friend got a second opinion and was able to get his treatment). I am sure the anecdotes you've read on reddit are accurate for the experiences of those recounting them. But consider that there may be other experiences, ones that you aren't seeing on reddit.
Please don't mistake me for advocating for something that I'm not. If a procedure isn't safe for someone due to an underlying condition that should be taken into account.
Everyone has experiences with idiot doctors. They don't need protection under the law to pursue a second opinion.
Legislating this will increase medical costs, insurance costs and is not necessary for these cases like your friend. I can assure you that the thinking of the movement and the push behind this legislation is thus:
Weight is neutral. Body size is something that comes in diversity, just as skin color does. Society needs to ebmrace that and accommodate that.
For further reading, please see this web site. While their mission statement gives lip service to ending discrimination, you need to look under the hood as to what they consider to be discrimination.
https://www.sizediversityandhealth.org/
Legislating for this kind of stuff is a slippery slope, because I believe it would promote the backwards thinking that underlies the Fat Acceptance movement regarding obesity.
As I stated earlier, this is not the way to address the issues these people are facing.
I appreciate that you wish to educate me, but I'm acquainted with the goals and perspective of the Fat Acceptance movement.
Yes, people can seek second opinions. But should doctors be denying medical care to people based on their weight (when the weight itself isn't a factor that will make a surgery/treatment more risky)? I have an opinion on this, you may have a different opinion. My opinion isn't based in ignorance of the situation.
Writing someone a prescription for a skin condition isn't "embracing" a condition, it's practicing medicine. Why should a fat person have to go to doctor after doctor to get adequate treatment? That medical professionals should provide a basic standard of care isn't "backwards thinking" in my view.
Weight isn't neutral in all cases. But if a doctor would write a prescription for a thin person with a skin condition and refuse to write the same prescription for a larger person strictly due to weight (again, not potential complications or risks, but just a feeling about fat people) . . . that's weight playing a role that it shouldn't play.
Same with jobs. If someone is passed over for a promotion or refused a job simply due to their weight and not their ability to do a job, that's weight playing a role that it shouldn't play. Some of the most competent and impressive people I work with are overweight or obese. In many jobs, it just isn't a relevant factor. Why shouldn't weight be neutral in those cases?
If that's backwards thinking, then I'll be backward.
I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist. There are definitely doctors (in fact I believe there's hard data out there on this, I'm pretty sure I've seen a statistic quoted on it) out there who admit that they have trouble with obese people, and sometimes it's with good reason, because they're often not compliant with their own health care, much in the way smokers are. The answer to people who continued to smoke against medical advice wasn't to accommodate smokers, it was to find ways to deal with the smoking problem. I feel the same way about obesity.
I don't believe that we can legislated against every bias people encounter, and especially in this case since it's a self-inflicted condition that a person often chooses to remain in. I think this is a slippery slope society should not start down and that there are other avenues for people wronged by idiots can pursue.
That makes sense -- thanks for explaining.
My mom is a nurse-practitioner and she says that the majority of the problems she encounters (she deals with the chronically ill) are related to lack of compliance. It can be really frustrating for professionals trying to do their best then to feel like the patients themselves (or the responsible caretakers) aren't even trying to meet them halfway.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions