The NAAFA, the “National Association to Advance Fat People”, has recently gotten coverage from the New York Times regarding their staunch opposition to what they consider stereotyping in culture perpetrated by health advocates. This has recently come to light as many are arguing that, in the light of a potential “national healthcare option”, it would be highly unfair to use a larger percent of tax dollars to pay for what many people purport are self-perpetuated health problems via obesity, smoking, and the like.
And as you can imagine, the NAAFA’s argument is laughable. Here’s why.
Let me jump immediately into the fray. NAAFA’s statement is, in essence, that health and fat are not correlated, and thus “The only thing anyone can accurately diagnose by looking at a fat person is their own level of stereotype and prejudice about fat”, or so the NYT quotes. The fundamental idea here is that you can be healthy and fat at the very same time- meaning that prejudices associated with obesity (being lazy, being unhealthy, having a higher risk for certain diseases) are unfair and ultimately unjust. According to the NAAFA’s homepage, these prejudices result in a huge number of problems, including problems in education and the workplace, wage disparities, “medial and psychological effects” (heh), and the like.
As you can imagine, this sounds highly suspect. After all, haven’t legitimate, MD holding doctors been openly talking about the dangers of Obesity for… years? Isn’t it one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide? Hasn’t it been linked to birth defects, heart failure, osteoarthritis, and depression? Has it not been linked to cancer? Arguably worst of all, hasn’t it been linked to erectile dysfunction? Absolutely. Every single one.
One of the core arguments to all of the above listed (which are indeed incredibly scary) is pretty simple: “I can’t help it”. A simple phrase, but a powerful one that’s manifested itself in many forms. Genetic dispositions towards obesity do exist to some degree, though it wildly varies with your actual genes and the environment in which you live in- and mainly the lifestyle you live. Those who do try to fight it aren’t statistically supported- a very small percentage of people actually ever succeed in long term weight loss.
So why do I think the NAAFA is, in essence, trying to perpetuate polite fiction?
First off, let’s get something straight: just because there is not a direct casual link between obesity and bad health does not mean there is not a strong correlation. Put in simpler terms, just because someone who is obese does not HAVE to be unhealthy does not mean that, on average, being obese can severely hurt your health in general. Merely stating an outlying possibility (that someone could be obese and perfectly healthy) does not inherently mean that everyone who is obese gets carte blanche to do as they like and whine all they like.
The NAAFA, in essence, is attempting to find a way to construct a happy world where outlying possibilities dictate universal fact. They want to construct a pity party out of their largely complicit inadequacies- that is, their inability to manage their diet, though it may be difficult due to their genes- and demand compliance (and even legislation) to enforce it. Long story short? They want you to believe that they cannot control themselves, and are, to make a very touchy connection, “born that way”- and we should accept them as they are.
But do genes dictate our lives? Are we merely slaves to the way in which we are genetically constructed? Is the “nurture” part of the “nature vs nurture” argument suddenly lost? The NAAFA would like you to believe so. They paint the world as one filled with incredibly fat victims, tortured by their own body construction and the food around them. They are unable to fight back against the pressures around them, and expecting to do so is a moot point: rather, you should merely accept them and accommodate them unquestionably.
Part of this argument merely lies in the definition of health. What is health? Given the NAAFA’s rather loose definition, it probably refers to merely not being sick-as-in-going-to-the-doctor. But what if we’re to consider health something more concrete- like the ability to physically perform tasks? Indeed, we’re nowhere near as strong as we were before, to the point where this generation’s men are jokingly termed the “worst men ever”- but can’t we set the bar a little higher than “not currently dying”?
Indeed, there are many people out there who have a genetic predisposition to be bigger than other people- it’s something they indeed cannot help, and we can’t magically “switch” their genes. There will always be people who pack on pounds easier and more frequently than others. This does not give them the right to demand universal acceptance in law. Much like many children of alcoholics have what many casually call the “alcoholic gene“, many people in this world may very well carry the “fat gene” with them- but, much like the alcoholics, this does not give them the right to simply bow to their genetics as a victim. The plain and simple fact is, you are responsible for your actions largely independent of your genetic predispositions- you have absolutely no right to curl up into a fetal position in fealty to your inadequacies while simultaneously demanding respect.
