If you change the terminology in "people with obesity", the stigma is not mitigated against fat people

The British Psychological Society encourages us to change the way we talk about obesity and suggests that we no longer use the term "obese people" but "people with obesity" or "people with obesity Life".

These changes are suggested to recognize that fat is not about making personal decisions and that it is harmful to you.

However, this proposed language change is based on the idea that obesity is a disease to be cured and that fat people are not a natural part of the world. This serves to reinforce the stigma rather than prevent it.

How do stigmatization and shame affect fat people?

Fat stigma can damage people's physical health, mental health and relationships.

Regardless of the body mass index (BMI), the fat stigma increases blood pressure, inflammation and cortisol levels in the body due to the activation of the combat or escape response.

Fat stigma reduces self-esteem and increases depression. It isolates fat people and makes them less likely to deal with the world. This also affects the relationships of fat people to family, colleagues and friends.

People around the world and of all ages have a negative attitude towards fat and fat people. For example, in a study in the US, more than one-third of participants reported:

One of the worst things that could happen to a person is that he becomes obese.

How terminology reinforces the stigma

While many people feel fatigued with the term fat, fat activists prefer this term. They see it as an act of rebellion - accepting a word against them - but also because they think that it is the most appropriate word to describe their body.

Overweight means that there is a natural weight. Within human diversity we should all have the same ratio of size and weight.

Obesity is a medical term that has pathologized the fat body. The British Psychological Society's realization that we should not call them "obese people" but "people with obesity" confirms that obesity is a disease. A chronic disease that people suffer from.

The desire of the British Psychological Society to change to the first language is understandable. Person-first or people-first language is an attempt to define people not primarily by their illness or disability or another deviant factor.

Problem? The Solution:Afast Company.

The person-first language recognizes people as individuals with the right to dignity and care and puts the person and not their "condition" in the foreground.

Others, however, have argued that the first language attempts to erase, deny or ignore the aspect of the person who is not "normal" and affirms that their disability or illness has something vile or dehumanizing.

They promote an identity-defining language that enables people to be proud of who they are instead of separating a person from this aspect of themselves.

The problem with the first language is that these identities would be stigmatized. But without the stigma, there would be no concern about calling someone handicapped people, for example, rather than disabled people.

So, what should we do?

The best approach, especially for health professionals, is to ask people how they prefer their name.

And for the rest of us, it's up to them to acknowledge what an individual wants to be called, or how they want to talk about their experiences, not us. If a fat person wants to call himself fat, it's not up to the non-fats to correct it.

Changing the language to talk about fat and fat can reduce the fat stigma. But continuing to classify fat as a disease is not a helpful contribution.