Big excitement in New York City right now as Mayor Eric Adams has just signed a bill barring individuals from being discriminated against for their height and weight when it comes to access to employment, public housing and public accommodation. Essentially, this is designed to make obese people (anyone with a Body Mass Index > 30) a protected class, along with the other 19 protected classes in NYC such as race, age, disability, sexual orientation, immigration status, etc. The legislation takes effect at the turn of the year, at which point the fun will begin.
The legislation did not come as much of a surprise. For a few years now heavy set people have been pushing the idea – using the mantra “body positivity” – that being overweight is entirely natural and not at all unhealthy, while at the same time saying it makes them vulnerable to discrimination. In fact, they even claim that fatness is caused by discrimination. Whenever a group of people in the more lefty parts of the country even whisper the word discrimination, legislation follows as surely as night does day.
The weight discrimination bill reflects a remarkable change in Mayor Adams’s views. Seven years ago he successfully treated a diagnosis of diabetes with rigorous lifestyle changes. He dropped a lot of weight, eschewed fast food and became a vegan. Since then he has lobbied for healthier living as a means to cut down chronic illnesses. Only last year he commented in an editorial: “I have made it my mission to use what I learned and increase New Yorkers’ access to a high-quality, affordable, nutritious diet, so that more people can avoid diseases in the first place.”
Adams is spot on with the health stuff as obesity is one of the foremost health issues in the U.S. The CDC’s current data show that: “Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer. These are among the leading causes of preventable, premature death.” The obesity rate among U.S. adults is 41.9%, and the estimated excess medical costs for our population is $173 Billion.
This begs the question: why should the obese be protected as they can diet and exercise just like Adams? However, the currently fashionable view is that obesity has social causes. Two “experts” from Harvard sum up one of these causes in a paper entitled “Is obesity a manifestation of systemic racism?” The paper answers the question with an enthusiastic yes, and states the cure for obesity lies in fighting the “systemic racism” that causes chronic stress which in turn causes obesity.
It would be hard to believe, even as little as 10 years ago, that two medical doctors would write such a paper. Are you sure it’s not down to over-eating guys? But these days it is par for the course. In a country where recent official pronouncements from medical groups such as the American Psychological Association state that gender dysphoria can be cured by poisoning children with chemicals and cutting off their body parts, it goes unnoticed. However, it explains why Adams has gone all Mayor Wokey and turned the obese into a protected class, rather than urging New Yorkers to eat fewer donuts.
Even if racism and other social factors do cause obesity, the evidence for them being discriminated against is a little threadbare. By “discrimination” what the porkers have in mind is hurty words, along with furniture not being designed to accommodate the grossly overweight. The New York Times reports one such example: “A student at New York University said that desks in classrooms were too small for her, preventing her from taking notes.” Nevertheless, being extremely fat has not held back people in their chosen profession. On the contrary, it can now be a boon. There is now a whole class of ‘plus-sizers’ whose careers are based on being heavy set, such as overweight actors and models/influencers, as well as singers like the 300lb Lizzo.
Americans are usually relaxed about how others want to live their lives. If overweight people want to celebrate the way they are or believe society is to blame by their inability to stop eating, the default attitude is that’s their business. However, a disturbing trend has emerged in the last 10 years or so where this live-and-live-and-let-live attitude is not enough for members of protected groups – they want to make us feel bad about oppressing them.
The poster child for all this is Colorado. Colorado’s anti-discrimination legislation made sexual orientation a protected class in 2008. No-one noticed until gay marriage activists went all Rosa Parks on a small bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, in 2012. They insisted on a cake being made for their gay wedding (a little strange as Colorado had not yet legalised gay marriage). The baker refused for religious reasons. The activists were supported by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the bakery lost in state court. But the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in 2018.
However, as soon as the Supremes announced their verdict, the activists were back, only this time they were down with the transgender struggle and wanted Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a cake for a gender transition celebration. They won, although the judgment has not been tested in the Supreme Court yet. No cakes will ever be baked in this ongoing saga of course, because this nonsense is not about enjoying a cake, it’s about rubbing your enemies’ face in it.
Once a protected class magically appears, all kinds of mischief follows. The avalanche of lawsuits that will drop in ever-litigious New York City beginning next year will be awesome. As to what form these will take, a clue was provided by the “plus-size Influencer” Jae’lynn Chaney. She put up a well-timed petition on Change.org in April asking for “Body Equity” for Plus-size airline passengers. Her demands include bigger seats or two seats for the price of one, larger toilets on planes and training for airline staff in the needs of plus-size passengers. Ms. Chaney currently has the option of buying two seats together or getting a seat in business class, but she wants the airlines to buy them for her.
This is a growing movement in blue states. So far, six other cities like San Francisco, and one state, Michigan, have passed similar legislation, while New Jersey is looking at doing so. The heady mix of more discrimination, unscientific thinking and the joy of finding another way to tell people how to behave is irresistible to the Lefty authoritarians. Meanwhile, New York City will have to start working on how to pay for all the concessions made to the overweight that will be the inevitable result of the lawsuits.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We don’t need to worry about plane seats. Flying will be banned for most of us in the next few years in order to hit net-zero.
Giving two seats for the price of one will make it less profitable to run a service so prices will rise and fewer flights be made – or more routes will cease. This is entirely in line with net-zero objectives.
I will say it loud and proud and oppress these little fascists – you are a fat, ugly, dumb looking, obese, distorted and shattered piece of humanity. You are not special. You are just another overweight and quite useless eater who affronts my sense of humanity and oppresses my private space. (And it is no wonder you are a lesbian, not even beer goggles would allow any man to get close to that). There fixed it.
If a fatty asked me for help, I’d give him tough love, as follows…
Until you recognise that
1. Being a fatty is a problem and
2. You are a fatty because you eat too much…
…you won’t ever be able to understand why you eat too much.
And it isn’t because you love food, or love eating food. The fatties I see have a terrible disrespect for food.
If you downvote, please pay £5 to comment, so we can debate. We may both learn something from each other.
I would add that they eat too much of the processed crap which lacks nutrients, is full of calories, promotes inflammation & disease.
Folk who eat quality, unprocessed food are less likely to be obese.
If you’re too lazy to cook, then fake food is what you eat. Fake food = pap = dysfunctional body
The hole at the top is bigger than the hole at the bottom.
Fat and gross and likely to die of multiple diseases. The West has lost its mind!!
Look on the brightside – they won’t be a burden on society in their old age.
But they’ll cost us an absolute fortune before they complete their self-inflicted shorter life-span.
The only benefit brought to society by these salad-dodgers is the likelihood of them having a severely reduced life-span.
Red Meat Dodgers, too.
In fact, they seem to dodge all the wonderful things – fat, salt and sugar.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick has pointed out that it’s the “underweight” (BMI less than 18.5) who have the lowest life expectancy, the “overweight” (BMI 25 to 30) the highest.
Those with a BMI of 30-35 live slightly longer than “normal” weight people with a BMI of 18.5 to 25
Quality of life is what I am after. And BMI is a BS measure anyway.
I couldn’t enjoy my life if I were a fatty. From what I see of fatties, they don’t, either.
What’s your definition of a “fatty”?
Being so large you can’t take a dog for a decent walk is clearly a problem, being considered a bit tubby not so much.
We’re clearly designed/evolved to go into the winter with a bit of padding.
My definition of a fatty is someone who is fat. I don’t think we need to complicate this.
I am currently doing nothing special to work off an external layer of winter fat around my middle but thankfully it’s nothing too serious as I was fairly active through winter and eating normally. Also hydrating properly to avoid false hunger, and trying to enjoy as much sun as possible.
I take none of this for granted as I am aware that something unusual might happen to me which means I am unable to continue in my normal way.
I am also very sympathetic to the many reasons people become fatties in the first place, but I will not patronise them by telling them that it isn’t their fault (in most cases).
BMI measures pounds per square inch (weight /height * height) – it’s a pressure.
The only objects about which anything can be gleaned from one linear dimension are the platonic solids….
Exactly. It’s the same reason we have speed cameras everywhere – not because speed alone actually means anything, but simply because it’s easy to measure.
I personally think BMI should be abolished, full stop. It’s not remotely accurate. The obvious example being somebody who isn’t tall but is well-muscled but would fall into the ”overweight” category. Another being the typical ”apple” shapes, who may have slim limbs but carry weight around their abdomen, where it is most dangerous, but they fall in the ”normal” category. I think either do body scanning or the ‘waist to hip’ ratio is a better indication.
Personally one thing I do, aside from regularly taking measurements or weighing myself ( people can take selfies too ), is avoid wearing too many stretchy or loose-fitting clothes. You can easily kid yourself you’re still a UK size 12 if all you live in is leggings and baggy tops, meanwhile 10kgs have snuck on from somewhere! lol
But if BMI is what they use we’re perfectly entitled to point out that the stats don’t support their claims.
Interesting downticks.
Even Dr Kendrick was lambasted when he pointed out that awkward fact about moderate ‘overweight’ was associated with greater longevity.
As mine is about 27 I can live with that!
Yes, you have ‘overweight’ in inverted commas. Dr Kendrick’s point is that moderately ‘overweight’ people are not moderately overweight.
You’re making no distinction between slightly overweight and grossly overweight, which is the very thing Dr Malcolm Kendrick has criticised.
Also, in regard to the “underweight” (BMI less than 18.5) having “the lowest life expectancy”, we would need to know how they determine if a person is underweight or not. If they are fairly average weight for most of their lives but underweight for the last few years of their lives (due illness), are they classified as ‘underweight’?
And are anorexics, who die young due to their illness, grouped in with people who are slightly underweight to arrive at the conclusion that on average underweight people have a lower life expectancy?
I’m using the categories used by those who hector us.
But I would agree that the reason the category “obese class 2” is so wide is so that people with a BMI of 36 can be scared with the health consequences of being a land whale.
This article by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, in The Independent in 2015, has the headline:
“Why being ‘overweight’ means you live longer: The way scientists twist the facts”
I don’t think The Independent would allow “The way scientists twist the facts” to be in headline these days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-being-overweight-means-you-live-longer-the-way-scientists-twist-the-facts-10158229.html
That looks morbidly obese to me.
I practice in musculoskeletal medicine.
My practice would be significantly leaner if not for obesity (pun very much intended).
I don’t see too many obese patients wanting me to help them celebrate their body habitus.
Most are in pain, or battling their cancer, diabetes or heart disease.
Let’s see how these fatties fare when life-ending disease hits.
Are you often successful in getting them to lose weight?
I do a fair bit of exercise including spin classes. It’s quite a surprise that the fit 60+ year-olds are so much better than the 30-50 year-olds. Invariably the younger ones are a bit flabby & simply have no idea how to put in serious, sustained effort.
Reasonable success Nick when the motivation and discipline are strong.
Requires a structured and individualised exercise plan as well as diet plan and frequent follow ups.
Ahh the pungent eye watering smell of Blackrock, Vanguard and Pharma. Fund papers and encourage legislation that boosts people’s ill health, give them constant fluffy psychological massages persuading them they’re the poor victim, then ‘support’ the rest of their miserable lives with a daily smorgasbord of drugs.
Please don’t put Vanguard in the same box as BlackRock. Jack Bogle has done more for the common, ordinary, frugal investor than anyone. Rest in Peace, Jack…
Except aren’t Vanguard now the majority shareholders in Blackrock?
So? If you have a pension, so are you.
Yep. And that makes this giant monolithic capitalist behemoth a good thing how? As far as I understand it, Blackrock now own pretty much everything. You can see the shareholders of Blackrock. The largest shareholder in Blackrock is Vanguard and the shareholders in Vanguard are secret.
I’m far from an anti-capitalist but over the past few years we have silently moved into some very sinister territory.
The shareholders of Vanguard are not secret. How do I know? I am one.
Vanguard is a MUTUAL.
So am I. But my point is can you list all the major investors in Vanguard? That’s the bit that’s murky and none of this changes the fact that pretty much everything now is owned by them both. The supposed forever war between Pepsi and Coke? Owned by the same company.
So getting back my original point, both Vanguard and Blackrock are the engine behind the worst aspects of big pharma – whether it’s pushing useless Covid jabs that can paralyse and blind you or diabetes medicine because you spent your life having a shit tonne of their hyper-processed food and drink pushed on to you. But that’s monopolies for you..
I have a lot of sympathy for fat people, as, unlike the 60s and at least the early 70s, we live in an age where there is 24-hour temptation from low-cost, fattening food. Yes I’m slim, but it is pretty much a constant fight, I have to run around ten miles a week, have to constantly watch portion size etc, but I’m also fortunate that I don’t tend to have an ‘addictive’ personality and usually manage to stop myself when doing too much of anything. I know someone who mocks fat people, but he has a vice too. He drinks far too much – liver probably pickled, but his problem doesn’t show on the outside! So, unlike some posters here, I really don’t think we should be mocking them as we all have our vices, our weaknesses…. However, there should certainly be a clear societal message that fat is not a good thing, in the interests of all those people who are greatly elevating their risk of dying prematurely from an obesity-related disease (millions more than die from anorexia!). And of course people who are taking up two seats in an aircraft should pay for them. Those who say fat is fine, and that we should ‘celebrate’ obesity, are at best misguided and at worse cruel, as they are effectively handing people a great excuse to remain as they are and do nothing about it. The underlying message here, although I accept most who are promulgating it are doing it in good faith, is evil.
Well said Deborah. Whenever I’ve seen videos or pictures of obese people seemingly happy and celebrating their fatness I always thing it’s a charade. I’m not fat but know just how rubbish I feel if I’ve let myself go and fallen off the wagon for a bit, let alone put on any significant weight so that I need to buy bigger clothes sizes. So for these obese people I always think just how inconvenient and problematic day to day life must be. Some people I look at and think how do they even maintain personal hygiene effectively. I’d also be cautious about sitting down on a seat anywhere, such as in a waiting area, let alone fairground rides and public transport. Just basic stuff the rest of us don’t have to think twice about.
Deriding them is easy but when I’ve worked with bariatric patients in hospital in the past, people didn’t get that size because they just ate too many pies. You realise that many people carry their hurt and wear it on the outside. Fat can be the physical manifestation of trauma and self-abuse. There’s a lot of self-loathing and emotional eating involved. Not many people get so large because they’re happy with their lives and have a healthy sense of self-esteem. There’s a lot of damage psychologically for a person to do that to themselves. Being that size should never be normalized or ”celebrated” but it’s also not as simple as ”just eat less and move more” for many either. Some people abuse their health with excessive drinking or drugs, others’ drug of choice is food.
Indeed – food is a readily accessible source of solace when life is tough, and I’ve resorted to it frequently. The fat goes on far more easily than it comes off, especially as you age and lose muscle mass.
Indeed, age is what gets all of us.
In the meantime, however…
Agreed.
The reason people are fat is because they eat too much (except in a few very unusual cases).
The reasons people eat too much are many and varied. Boredom. Depression. Abuse. Never having enjoyed full fat butter and red meat and wine so they never feel satisfied and they rush their food.
But the first challenge is to have common acceptance of the first point – that people are fat because they eat too much.
Or, to put this more bluntly, the Russians didn’t find any fatties when they opened the gates of Auschwitz…
Or, to put this more bluntly, the Russians didn’t find any fatties when they opened the gates of Auschwitz…
Not much surprising, given that all Auschwitz installations were blown up or otherwise damaged and all people from the camp marched back into the Reich (that’s still a strangely cumbersome course of action when they were all supposed to be killed, anyway).
Nice post. I’d also add we probably should be weighing people plus their cases at airports instead of just cases. The exploding weight of people these days, especially Americans must completely play havoc with aircraft weight calculations.
It would be an incentive for overweight people to reduce their weight without restricting their personal freedom.
I have a lot of sympathy for fat people, as, unlike the 60s and at least the early 70s, we live in an age where there is 24-hour temptation from low-cost, fattening food.
It’s really anything but low cost. At Sainsbury’s, one can buy 2.5kg of potatoes and 1kg of carrots for £1.75 and that’s principally enough to feed a single person (frugally) for a whole month. Adding 900g of cheap pork increases that to £8.25 and things start to get very realistic. Spending another £5.5 per week on other vegetables, mostly, different kinds of cabbage, will enable a single person to eat very well for a month for the price of about 30.5 McDonald’s cheeseburgers. And that’s with current prices which are all a bit high due to coronaflation.
Obvious downside: Has to be cooked, ie, it’s not just Run into next fast food outlet and get something (with lots of fat and sugar in it) one can immediately devour whenever appetite strikes, the heavily marketed alternate choice.
it is pretty much a constant fight, I have to run around ten miles a week, have to constantly watch portion size etc,
I’m walking more than 10 miles in three days (actually, about 8 1/2 miles every two days) and this for no particular reason except that I enjoy this after having been forced to sit all day for work. Apart from that, I never (ie, only very rarely) eat out but always prepare my own food. Before I learned how to do that, I had ballooned to a waist size of about 32 (I’m a small person for a man). This has meanwhile shrunken back to 30 which is still a little too large for me. And I decidedly like to eat well, ie, good stuff and enough of it.
Obesity explosion beginning in the late 80’s – yet another autoimmune “disease” linked to adjuvants/preservatives in vaccines –
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982359/
Perhaps the good mayor (and bigpharma) ought to look at that.
Also this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
So it’s a good job we’ve got the new mRNA gene therapies, sorry vaccines is it not. They totally don’t adversely affect the immune system at all do they.
Interesting one this. I think in general being fat is not overly good for you, not just in terms of life expectancy but also your ongoing health and ability to enjoy life to the full, so I certainly don’t think any public bodies should be going out of their way to make fat people feel happy about their fatness. Equally I am doubtful as to whether public bodies should say anything either way about fatness, thinness or any other personal health related issue.
Should fatness be a protected characteristic? Should there be any protected characteristics? What should they be? How far should non-discrimination law go? Should it apply only to publicly funded or controlled organisations, or should it also apply to any organisation that is generally accessible to the public, which provides a public service? Should it apply to small businesses for which alternatives are easily found?
Are we getting a bit mean on this site in the comments? Maybe Marianna is amongst us already egging us on to say quotable mean and even violent sounding stuff sometimes (!). Free speech and all that. I get it. But I don’t always like it. Probably said a few mean sounding things myself on occasion.
Yes well, when you’re protected by your ‘Free Speech’ cloak of invincibility and your motto in online, anonymous life is ”offense is taken not given”, then it does give certain peeps carte blanche to just be plain old nasty and fear no retaliation or consequences.
Gotta dig up that Tyson quote again; ”Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it.”
https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2022/05/17/mike-tyson-internet-trolls-truth/
True but isn’t the problem this: who decides what constitutes “disrespect” bad enough to justify violence?
Principially, all of it which is either intentional or grossly negligent. In more polite times, people used to fight duels because of insults.
Yes but who decides what is intentional or grossly negligent?
Funnily enough I just re-watched “The Duellists” after a gap of 40 years.
The offended party, obviously, based on some set of formal and informal rules for that. Originally, I come from a rural area where fights weren’t at all uncommon and mostly, this worked well.
Glad it worked well for you. It really depends on what kind of humans you’re coming into contact with. One man’s “disrespect” is someone else giving you a bollocking you deserve.
Considering that I’m an autist, it worked spectacularly badly for me for over two decades, until I had worked out enough of human behaviour rules to at least avoid being unintentionally disrespectful all the time. But overall, the system worked, especially wrt to loudmouth bullies seeking to gain advantages for themselves who are nowadays always protected by suckurity engaged for this purpose.
I get what you are saying about loudmouth bullies, but I tend to think that words, laughing at them or ignoring them are the best responses to such people. Best not to get triggered.
I’ve got no problem with people resorting to physical violence if they or their family or property are under attack. But I think it has to stop there. I will give an example that came up actually today. A tennis coach at our club observed a child passing by (a child that was accompanied by a parent) pull the fence round the club up, stick its hand through the gap and removed a ball to take away with it. He pointed out that the child was stealing. The mother was outraged (you can’t talk to my child like that!) then justified the theft by saying that they only cost 20p (not true, not even close, more like £2). So the mother felt disrespected. There was no violence, but had it been a dad rather than a mum, it’s quite possible there would have been. Would that have been justified?
I get what you are saying about loudmouth bullies, but I tend to think that words, laughing at them or ignoring them are the best responses to such people. Best not to get triggered.
I don’t think so. An example from glorious Corona times: Back at the time when hospitality venues were still restricted to serving seated customers at socially distanced tables, long queues would obviously form in front of them. In theory, such a queue was supposed to be socially distanced, too, but this wasn’t practical. When queueing there alone, I needed to take care of not leaving enough space in front of me for someone else to press in there because otherwise, some band of loud and obviously not sober people would invariably show up who’d simply queue in front of me as there was nothing I could do against that. When they were forced to queue behind me, they would continously shout at each other, stage mock fights among them and engage in other kinds of intimidating behaviour while constantly trying to get past me nevertheless.
That’s the kind of people I was referring to: They’ve grown up based on the notion that they can always get away with bad behaviour because nobody may do as much as say a loud word to them. And hence, they exploit this to the hilt. Such fleurs de mauvaises don’t develop in a culture were the usual outcome of bad behaviour is a punch in the face (German jemandem die Fresse polieren, literally polish someone’s face).
As to your example, that’s just weird in this context. The child was stealing, that the mother wanted to support this is entirely her fault and the appropriate action would have been to take the ball from the child, possibly while holding the mother at bay. There’s no question of honour or politeness involved here.
It’s certainly true that people of the kind you refer to get away with a lot. I’m certainly fine with standing up to them. If they try to push into a queue, you could try telling them they can’t and if that doesn’t work then yes by all means get physical – to start with, just block them. if they push you, push back. And so on. What I was referring to, and what I think the original poster was referring to, was people “disrespecting” you verbally (or in writing). I don’t think physical violence is a particularly satisfactory way of dealing with that.
“systemic racism” that causes chronic stress which in turn causes obesity.”
Cobblers! Get your teeth wired up and watch the weight fall off! Oh and save yourself from type 1 diabetes and replacement joints!
Didn’t gluttony used to be classed as a ‘deadly sin?’
Oh, I forgot that in America now that list is a ‘how to’ guide…for the decadent dystopian financially and morally bankrupt regime to follow..under the guise of the ‘greatest democracy in the world’…..
I know they are entirely detached from reality..but do they honestly think the rest of us are buying it?
The paper answers the question with an enthusiastic yes, and states the cure for obesity lies in fighting the “systemic racism” that causes chronic stress which in turn causes obesity.
In other words, the best way to fight obesity is not Do something to help obese people who want to lose weight but Pour more resources into woke political projects, the usual scam.
It’s America (and soon the rest of the West)….all depravities, foibles and predilections are now to be celebrated..and condoned….not reigned in or questioned…
The lump of lard in that picture is grotesque. I can never understand why men hook up with obscenely fat women …. let alone get them pregnant.
The legislation that could be useful would target Big Food and the hyper-availability of ultra processed and ultra moreish meals and snacks.