A couple of people have sent me this link this morning, and thank you very much to all of you! The New York Times has written an article about de-stigmatizing fat, the fat acceptance movement, and the genetics of obesity. An absolute must-read.
But some activists and academics, part of a growing social movement known as fat acceptance, suggest that we rethink this war — as well as our definition of health itself. Fat-acceptance activists insist you can’t assume someone is unhealthy just because he’s fat, any more than you can assume someone is healthy just because he’s slim. (They deliberately use the word “fat” as a way to reclaim it, much the way some gay rights activists use the word “queer.”)
Rather, they say, we should focus on health measurements that are more meaningful than numbers on a scale… This is a core argument of fat acceptance: that it’s possible to be healthy no matter how fat you are and that weight loss as a goal is futile, unnecessary and counterproductive — and that fatness is nobody’s business but your own…
Scientists who study obesity at the cellular level say genetics determines people’s natural weight range, right down to the type and amount of food they crave, how much they move and where they accumulate fat. Asking how someone got to be so fat is as meaningless as asking how he got to be so tall.
Thank you New York Times! It’s great to see this common sense point of view gaining wider legitimacy in the media.
Posted by mo pie