I really haven’t decided how I feel about obesity qualifying as a disability, but I don’t think the above comparison holds, primarily because disabilities vary too much to simply say that a remedy negates qualification. Diabetics take insulin to control their glucose levels — is that a remedy? Is taking Depakote a remedy for bipolarism? What if that particular drug doesn’t work for an individual? Isn’t a prosthetic arm a “remedy” in the same way that eyeglasses are for someone who is severely near-sighted? Do you consider near-sightedness a disability?

If dieting is “at minimum” what a fat person can do to address their weight (assuming they should address their weight), what if the dieting is completely ineffective? Or leads to weight gains instead of losses? When is it no longer a condition that requires a remedy by the individual? And is it a disability after that?

Physical variation cannot be easily categorized, particularly if you give up on the myth of normality.

Individ-ewe-al Writes:
September 16th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
…I am glad you understand that being fat is not necessarily unhealthy. But if you appreciate this, my question remains: even supposing it were possible for fat people to lose significant amounts of weight, why on earth should they? If your only answer is “because they get discriminated against” then it seems obvious that the problem is with the people doing the discriminating, not the fat people.

It is important to remember what the ADA generally does. It forces people to make choices they would not oridinarily make absent legislation. From an employer’s perspective, given two otherwise identical people to hire/keep employed, it will be preferable to hire/keep the one who does NOT require any accomodations.

We think that making the employer act against what she perceives as her immediate self interest is OK, largely because of the net positive effect on society. And that makes overall economic sense; there IS a net positive effect on society–even if on a small level, a particular ___ business would be perfectly rational to prefer nondisabled folks as their only clientele/employees. But the overall benefits does not change the reality that the ADA is primarily a transfer of costs for the benefit of those covered by the ADA.

**IF** obesity was considered to be in people’s realistic control–**IF**, for example, it was relatively simple and easy to lose weight–then it would be much more difficult to argue that other people should be disadvantaged by obesity-related disability claims. Thus it would be much less appropriate to apply the ADA to obese people. Of course, as we all know it is extraordinarily difficult to lose weight; morbidly obese people almost never do so. So this is actually moot in practice. But it answers your question “what difference WOULD it make anyway?”

Charles:

Also, the physiological disorder or condition language is not from the ADA (public law 101-363). Where is it coming from?

This is explained in the opinion. You should read the full opinion, as there’s a lot more than in the Alas summary–for obvious reasons, as it’a many pages long.

my argument is not that a diet is all fat people need to do.

My argument is that compared to a person who has a physical disability, and assuming that amp and fat activist don’t consider fatness in itself a disability, that AT MINIMUM a fat person can try change is their eating habits if they wish to remedy their fatness.
A person with a missing limb, paralyzation, a mental illness, deformaty, or other such disabilities CANNOT do that. Or maybe I’m wrong. But I’ve never heard of such a thing.

And diet isn’t a bad word, Diet is that way one eats, period. I think when people see the word diet they think Hollywood fad diets or something ridiculous like the”popcorn diet”. These are what are called weight loss diets.

And if I understand you correctly Charles are you implying that a person whoes fatness is causing them physical deterioration will do more damage to themselves by trying to relieve the fatness to relieve the physical deterioration, the ones that have succeeded? even in some of amps comments in his Diet=Death post there are people that have attested to substanible weight loss in themselves or others. Are you saying that have permanently damaged themselves?

I would like to reread the study that those statistics come from. I have a suspicion that the reason there is such a failure rate is because of the ‘quick fix’ one-way approach or complex regiments that are impossible to stick with. I also suspect those 5 percent lost too much weight too quickly. Also I believe contributing to those statistics is the fact that fat but healthy isn’t accounted for. They are using things like BMI and Averages to determine what a healthy weight across the board for every peson. According to BMI I was overweight at prepregnancy weight(150 pounds). But I wore a size 7/8-9 and 23% body fat. Which is healthy.

And I’m also suspicious of even that because I refuse to believe that there are ZERO people who have lost significant amounts of weight through lifestyle changes and kept it off and they are all physically damaged because of it.

I think there has become a weight loss hysteria surrounding the fat hysteria. There is nothing wrong with losing weight or wanting to lose weight, or not wanting to be overweight. The wrong is how you do it and your expectations of yourself. To a person who fatness is creating physical negatives in their lives I would encourage them to make lifestyle changes that will assist in them losing weight.

I will never look like Paris Hilton, I don’t even have the physical composition to be her body size without starving myself and having surgery to reduce the width of my rib cage.

On the comma question, what definition of physiological condition are you (and the court) using where obesity is not a physiological condition? Note (as the court seems not to) that obesity doesn’t need to be caused by a physiological disorder or condition, it needs to be a physiological disorder or condition (or a cosmetic disfigurement, or a loss of limb).

In particular, what definition of physiological condition would cover a permanently damaged knee, but not obesity?

Relatedly, pregnancy or a broken leg are not covered by ADA, but I haven’t found the basis for this. Anyone have any idea?

Also, the physiological disorder or condition language is not from the ADA (public law 101-363). Where is it coming from?

Your position, that fat people just need to change their diet and they will become no longer fat (eventually), and you know this to be so because someone you know is working on doing so, is one that we have seen many many times here. While it is possible that your mother will lose a large amount of weight and manage to keep it off for the longer term (decades, not months or even a few years), unfortunately (both for her if her health is directly affected by her weight and for your argument), her chances of doing so, particularly if she is in the weight range where her weight has become an impairment, are not very good. As Amp points out, there are no diets (including in the sense of permanent changes in diet) that have been established to be effective at producing significant permanent weight loss. 95% of people who attempt to lose significant weight will fail to do so. And attempting to do so will, for many of the 95% and some of the successful 5%, will cause permanent physical harm.

my answer is, if a person is fat (they don’t feel they need to lose any weight or are happy with themselves as is) but they are fat enough that is it causing them not to be able operate within reasonable bounds as any other persons of the general populations (even other so called fat people)(does it affect previous job performance, will they occupy two seats to sit comfortably on a bus, plane, or train, is it not safe for the person to be on certain amusment rides, is it affecting them in venues or situations where there are weight limits?, etc..) then they can’t make a claim of discrimination or disability. If they are able and choose not to remedy their fatness but it is causing disabling effects on their bodies, which they have chosen not to attempt to prevent or reverse because they don’t want to lose weight, than personally I wouldn’t want any concessions made for them.

If a fat person (whether by natural body type, choice, or a physical cause) is able to perform at a reasonable level as other persons of the general populations but is otherwise not allowed the opportunity to do so based on someone elses opinion of their fatness, barring safety concerns, than it is discrimination. If a person who is fat because of a mental or physical disability, but is dicriminated against unreasonabley (safety concerns are the only legitimate reason I can think of at this point) based on another persons opinion of their fatness (”they are just lazy and greedy slobs”) than it is a claim of discrimination. Those people to me would fall under the catergory as someone disabled. While it is hard to lose weight, there are overweight people that have zero control over their weight due to mental and physical disabilities.

I personally don’t believe true obesity or what is known as morbid obesity is positively genetic. (meaning there are people that are just going to be fat, they are genetically disposed to such, but its not an unhealthy trait. Then there are some people that are genetically disposed to being obese because of an unhealthy genetic trait)

Also, I might add, fat to me is obese, and obese to me is the point where you are so fat it becomes biochemically and biophysically deteriorating.

I personally don’t want to get any larger, but as we say over my way, Be fat, happy and healthy.

I am glad you understand that being fat is not necessarily unhealthy. But if you appreciate this, my question remains: even supposing it were possible for fat people to lose significant amounts of weight, why on earth should they? If your only answer is “because they get discriminated against” then it seems obvious that the problem is with the people doing the discriminating, not the fat people.

Okay to be fair. Explain to me what options a person with disabling Spinal Bifida can try and do that doesn’t involve surgery or extensive therapies that can minimize or totally remedy their condition, if they wished to do so.

Now tell me what options a “fat” or “obese” person can try and do that does not involve surgery or extensive therapies that can minimize or totally remedy their condition of “fatness”, if they wished to do so.

Ex. my mother is fat, she does not want to be fat, her fatness is creating physical and biochemical negatives. So she is making lifestyle changes to lose weight. This including relieving herself of a man that was killing her self esteem(with our help) and causing her to eat to relieve her depression, a job change, a change of eating habits, and more activity, and the occassional shrink meeting.

A friend of mine has no option but to continue to have painful surgeries to keep his knee from rejecting his foot from it, and wear a prosthesis. There is nothing he can do that will grow his calf back.

Thinness doesn’t equal health, which to anyone with common sense should be obvious.

I’ve read all through Amps post about the issue. Its not the same. If there is an option for a physically(as described) or mentally disabled purpose to even have the OPTION of remedying their situation through, MIMINUM, a lifestyle change, let me know. I’ll be sure to tell our close friend who was born with his foot is attached to his knee. Or my father who is mentally disabled(”daddy if you take vitamens like Tom Cruise says you’d be all better and not crazy anymore)”. Oh shoot, and then there is my grandmother who died a long painful death from MS. “nanny if you just cut your portions down in half and maybe walk a little bit, you’d be able to lift your arms again. Oh wait, you can’t walk.”

Eating a healthy diet and doing exercise doesn’t make most people lose weight, certainly not significant amounts of weight. And more severe weight loss strategies such as starvation diets or major surgery also don’t work in the long term, and I doubt you would call that kind of thing “minimal” cost anyway. How people get fat in the first place is not well understood; some of it may be linked to diet and lifestyle but the connection is in no way clear. But once someone is fat, it is extremely difficult for them to become thin again. You’ve probably seen propaganda to the contrary, but follow the money: it’s a lot easier to make fortunes out of selling diet and exercise plans, than it is to get thinner by following them.

The other question is, even if it were easy for a fat person to lose weight, why should they? If you’re going to continue to follow the script you’ve followed so far, you’re probably going to answer “Because being fat is unhealthy!” Even if being average-sized is healthier than being fat, which is by no means universally accepted, it doesn’t follow that losing weight will make a fat person healthier.

Look, Amp has a whole category of posts about just this issue! This site is the last place where mindlessly repeating diet industry propaganda is going to get you anywhere. And doing so in comments to posts about why that propaganda is wrong is even less productive.

I doubt that of a person who has a physical deformaty or has a conditions such as blindness, deafness or MS, etc, can do that.

Are you serious? Minimal steps?

Maybe a disability should be identified as a physical or mental condition which has no reasonable remedy. Meaning things like loss of limb, blindness, paralyzation, neurological and muscular disorders and diseases, physical deformaties.

I actually think it might be a diservice for disabled people to try to put the two in the same category socially or under law. A person who is physically obese, more often than not, has the option of taking minimal steps to losing the weight at little financial cost, while a person born without or whome has lost limbs cannot buy a book and use diet, exercise, any psychiatry to grow those missing limbs back and cannot receive a man made remedy without severe financial resources.

Have you read the decision?

The case was originally dismissed by summary judgement on the basis that no case could be made since obesity was not covered by the ADA. This dismissal by summary judgement was affirmed by the 6th circuit. At no point did any court consider the question of whether the accomodations that might have been required would have been reasonable. The case never reached a point where such a question (were the required accomodations reasonable) would properly be considered.

So I am not sure what trees you are even looking at. : )

Thanks for your story, kbrigan. It is depressingly familiar, but at some level it’s good to have these kinds of stories out there.

A recommended read is John Callahan’s “Don’t Worry. He won’t get far on foot,” especially for the part where social services gets on his case for being “too active” and therefore going through “too many” urine bags…

This is not the first time that obesity has prompted an ADA suit. I think the issue with the “physiological cause” language is the idea tht the guy could lose weight if he wanted to — in other words, being fat isn’t the same thing as being deaf. Obviously that’s debatable, which itself is probably the understatement of the year. Still, to say that someone is disabled — or perceived to be disabled (which is another ADA twist) — is perhaps not something that ultimately favors acceptance of the obese as a group. Instead, it could further marginalize fat as an abnormal condition when it clearly is not.

Basically, the ADA can be a tough statute for employers and employees. I once worked on a case in which an employee who had developed acute vertigo tried to force his employer to accommodate him when the main duty of his job was to climb radio towers to make repairs. It’s just really hard to articulate a general principle of accommodation that is fair to all sides.

But on the positive side, the ADA has led to a lot of improvements in the way of public accommodations in making buildings and communication more accessible.

All the medical research on weight for a decade has demonstrated various that the various physiological mechanisms by which people become obese have nothing to do with the individual’s desire to gain weight. And of course, it’s ridiculous: who would set out to weigh 450 lbs? It’s as bizarre a notion as that people would choose to be gay with all the danger and prejudice that entails.

I think public opinion will change, and that it will take time, but there’s never going to be a time without a backlash. There are people out there now still arguing whether women should vote.