The Fat Doctor Podcast

The Logical Fallacies That Season Your Holiday Fatphobia

• Dr Asher Larmie • Season 5 • Episode 38

Share episode

Send us a text

This holiday season, you'll hear countless claims about weight and health dressed up as concern or common sense. But beneath every "everybody knows" and "the experts say" lies a logical fallacy waiting to be dismantled. In this episode, I arm you with the tools to recognize and challenge the flawed reasoning behind anti-fat rhetoric from ad hominem attacks to deliberately vague language designed to make illogical arguments sound scientific." Whether you're facing concern trolling from relatives or rage-watching haters online, understanding these patterns of illogic reveals what's really happening: weak arguments from people who have nothing substantive to offer, desperately trying to justify discrimination while you're armed with evidence, reason, and the power to walk away.

Download your copy of Fat, Festive and Fierce here.

Got a question for the next podcast? Let me know!

Connect With Me

  • WEEKLY NEWSLETTER: Get a free script when you sign up
  • THE WEIGHTING ROOM: A community where authenticity thrives and every voice matters
  • The CONSULTING ROOM: Get answers to all your medical questions via DM or Voice Note PLUS access to my entire library of paid resources
  • CONSULTATION: For the ultimate transformation in your healthcare journe
  • THE WEIGH FORWARD: For people who are being denied surgery because of their weight
  • FREE GUIDES:Evidence-based, not diet nonsense

Find me on Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn.

Hello, and welcome to episode 38 of the Fat Doctor podcast, Season 5. We're almost at the end of Season 5, because we're almost at the end of 2025. I am your host, Dr. Asher Larmie.
I know it's December, and people are slowing down, taking this excuse to eat, drink, and be merry, and I'm all for that, I really am. But I still have a lot to say. When I was preparing for this month's podcast, I was like, I'm just gonna be breezy, chilled, not gonna be the usual Asher. That didn't work out. In part, it's because I want to give a special shout-out today to all of the haters who rage-watched me on YouTube.
A couple of episodes ago now, I don't get very many views on YouTube, but yeah, there were some very angry people. It happens sometimes. I just love that I live rent-free in these people's heads. But I did have something to say to them, and so I'm going to say a little bit of something to them, probably in the next episode more than this episode.
Yeah, as I was preparing, I was thinking, okay, holidays are coming, and there are many good things about the holidays. My favorite part of the holidays is that we get to stop working for a bit. My second favourite part is we get to eat a lot, although I do that every day. But you know what I mean. We get to eat all the fun foods, all the fun foods come out in the grocery stores and stuff, and that's fun. I love the family. But I'm very lucky that I have very few family members, so I don't have to put up with some random uncle that I'd rather not be around.
I love those things. But also, I am aware that holiday times can be very challenging, for a lot of reasons. One, there's a lot of people involved. Unless you're like me, and you're basically a hermit in the woods. I remember when I was working in clinical practice, there was the Christmas party, the obligatory Christmas party, that was no fun, especially as an autistic person. And just being around people, food is going to come up, bodies are going to come up, people are getting dressed up.
There's a real sense of focus, an intense focus. There are going to be all these people who are on a diet at the moment, or have lost their appetite because they're on GLP-1s, and so they're going to have a lot to say about Christmas and Christmas food, or holidays, I don't just assume Christmas, I don't celebrate Christmas. But you know what I mean. They're gonna have a lot to say.
And so, it can get a bit tricky. And so, I kind of was thinking about the things that people might say to you over the next few weeks. And I was thinking, how do I respond to these statements that people make around this time of the year. And so that's what today's episode's all going to be about. It's going to be basically, this is what people might say, and this is how I would respond to those people. And then next week, I'm going to go even deeper, get a bit more existential. Next week will really piss some people off. I can't wait.
But this week, this is what I would say in a situation. First of all, there's gonna be a real big push this month, certainly if not this month, next month in January. People are going to be telling you left, right, and center, that being fat is unhealthy. That's what they're gonna tell you. Being fat, unhealthy. We know this! Of course it is!
First of all, they're gonna say, you know, if you dare to question, says who? Which is my first question. Being fat is unhealthy. Oh, really? Says who? Oh, well, I mean, the evidence, the evidence says that. Just look at the statistics! Statistically speaking, fat people are unhealthy.
And this is a real problem. I mean, there's no denying statistics, sure. But as I'm sure you've heard me say many times, mistaking correlation for causation is a logical fallacy, and this is the problem with all of these statements, is that they're logically flawed. Every single time. And you can pick apart the logic if you want to. If you're so inclined, you can also tell people to just fuck off. That's another option. And sometimes I do. Sometimes I just laugh in people's faces and tell them to fuck off, but sometimes I do engage in a conversation.
And my first thing I'll say is, oh, please, please do not mistake correlation for causation. That is a logical fallacy, it's a logical error. Just because two things happen together doesn't mean one causes the other. Yeah, it's just fact. There's no disputing that.
And no one has ever been able to prove causation, ever, in the history of time. Has anyone ever been able to prove that being fat causes any health condition? I don't care which one you want to name, just name one. No. There's no evidence. There never has been any evidence, and there never will be any evidence. Because it's not true. And also impossible to prove. But most importantly, not true.
There's a book coming out one of these days that will, I think, hopefully prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, but for now, there is no evidence. Do not mistake correlation for causation. And there's also another several logical fallacies that happen here. Another one is the ecological fallacy.
The logical error, basically, where people assume that the relationship observed at a population-based level applies to every single individual in that group. So what's true for the group is true for the individual. That's the ecological fallacy, and that is never the case.
Alright, and I'll give you an example of this. The USA, the United States of America, has the largest total economy in the world. Does that mean that citizens of the United States of America are wealthy? Even compared to other people in high-income countries. Are people in the US wealthy? No.
According to the Federal Reserve data in 2025, the top 1% of households in the US hold around 30% of the country's wealth. The bottom 50% hold between 2-3% of the country's wealth. The top 10% of households control around 60% of the country's wealth. Do you see where I'm going here?
Just because a whole group is wealthy, just because the US has the largest total economy, doesn't mean that everyone in the US is rich. Quite the opposite, in fact. And the point here is that averages hide individual differences. Just because a class average test score is high doesn't mean everyone in the class performed well. Someone might have done extremely well, and others will have failed. And the average could still be high, or higher.
So please do not confuse what is going on for an entire population with what is happening to individuals in that population. You can't. This is a logical fallacy.
Sometimes, when I say these things, you know, and I come with science and evidence and data, people just go, scoff at me and go, please, everybody knows, everybody knows! Fat people are unhealthy. Everybody knows that you need to lose weight to be healthy, it's just common sense, everybody knows it, it's common sense. That, my friends, is another logical fallacy, a bandwagon fallacy. Just because you claim that a statement or an action is right because it's popular doesn't mean that it is.
Just because somebody says something, and a whole bunch of people agree, doesn't mean it's true. I don't need to give you real-world examples of this, because you could think of your own, but popular belief doesn't equal scientific fact, and it never has.
You can go back through the history of medicine and pick out the popular beliefs that were absolute nonsense once upon a time, and we now look back with horror. Really? We did that? We thought that was okay? We thought that was correct?
I've talked about this before many times, and I've given lots of examples, and again, there's a book coming out where I'll give lots and lots of examples, but it's just obvious, isn't it? Don't jump on a bandwagon. Use your brain!
Another thing people will say to me is, oh, but the experts claim. The experts, the WHO, the National Institute of Health, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, whatever it's called now. You know, they'll name an organization, the experts say it. An authority figure says it. A prestigious organization says it. So that must be true. Again, bullshit.
Medical organisations, so-called experts, authority figures, have been and continue to be wrong for a number of different reasons. Number one, they are human, and humans make mistakes. Humans are biased. Humans work with incomplete information. They also have financial interests. Find me a prestigious organization that doesn't have the pharmaceutical industry, the weight loss industry, some kind of industrial complex, financial-industrial complex, driving all of their decisions. Find me one. Just do it. I dare you, when it comes to health, obviously.
Sure, there are plenty of organisations that aren't funded by the weight loss industry, but not when it comes to health. I dare you to find one. Just, I challenge you to go out and find an organization that is really, truly unbiased. That really, truly doesn't have some kind of competing financial interest.
Organizations and authorities also follow outdated information. You think that they always know what they're talking about? You think they're up-to-date? I think not. I really think not. That shows how little you know about these organisations.
They're quite slow to update their guidelines. You know, it took until 1993 for the WHO to remove homosexuality from their international classification of diseases. 1990s, it took them that long before they went, you know what, I don't actually think it is an illness. We'll probably need to remove that. So they're slow, is what I'm saying.
Someone was telling me the other day there wasn't lipoedema, this is a well-known condition that has, you know, we know it exists, there's plenty of information about it, plenty of experts in the field. It's lipoedema, it's a medical condition. But it didn't actually exist in the International Classification of Diseases for the WHO, until this last couple of years. They've just introduced it. I mean, that just shows how slow and outdated they are.
They're also influenced by culture. They're just as influenced by culture as everyone else, these so-called experts and authority figures and panels. They're humans. They're flawed. And also, nobody is an expert in everything.
So, we can't just assume, because somebody has a medical degree like myself, they know what they're talking about. That's not true. I have a medical degree, and I don't always know what I'm talking about. And the same can be said for anybody who claims to be an expert. So instead of saying who said it, you need to ask what evidence supports it? Where are the studies that back this up?
We also have to ask, and this is really important, who benefits if this is true? Are there any independent researchers out there that we can listen to? Or is there someone benefiting? Because that's often the case.
So yeah, that's what happens, I think, when people are kind of trying to convince me that being fat is bad for you. I will usually come at them with evidence. And oftentimes, they're not swayed by the evidence, because they'll just go, you know, please. Either everybody knows, or the experts say.
There is a difference. Often it's the same person, but sometimes it's a different person, who goes on then to start talking to me about my body, and what I need to do for my health. It's not then about fat people in general, there's that kind of generalization, a general conversation about fat people. Now this is about people who are specifically speaking to me.
Saying that you need to lose weight for health. You need to lose weight for the sake of your health. There's the, you know, either you lose weight, or you'll die, or you won't be able to walk, you won't be able to see your grandchildren, you won't be able to, all the stupid shit that people say. You know, you're gonna have joint problems, you're gonna have heart disease, you're gonna have diabetes.
Even if those things happen, statistically speaking, like, these are very common conditions, so statistically speaking, they will happen to a lot of people. But, you know, they'll just go, either you lose weight, or this is gonna happen. We call this a false dilemma. Again, this is a logical fallacy.
False dilemma, a false dichotomy, claiming that there are only two options in a given situation. And these options are usually at the extreme polar opposites. Failing to acknowledge that there's actually a spectrum of things that you can do in between. You know, either dying, not being able to walk by the age of 50, or losing weight. Like, there's actually a whole bunch of stuff in between, far more reasonable.
And so, oftentimes, you can just kind of go, ah, that's very extreme. It's a bit of a false dichotomy there.
And they'll come back, they'll go, no, no, but you see, I'm telling you, so-and-so, you know, Auntie so-and-so, this person, that person at work, whoever, lost weight, and their HbA1C came down, or their joint pain improved, or they cured their whatever. There will always be somebody out there that did this, and so, you know, how is that possible? When people lose weight, their joint pain improves. How can you say that weight loss doesn't improve your health? When people lose weight and their joint pain improves?
Well, again, that is a post hoc fallacy. That is a real logical fallacy. Just because one event follows another doesn't mean the first event caused the second event. The two could be completely unrelated. Or there could be other factors at play, which is most often the case.
There could be systemic factors at play. Things like discrimination. Healthcare access. Equipment barriers, all sorts of things. There could be social determinants at play. We're talking about money, housing, environments. Environmental toxins, pollution, all sorts of things.
There could be biological processes at play, underlying biological processes at play, that somehow connect to both things. We're talking genetics, we're talking hormones, all sorts of things. There could also be a measurement or a reporting bias, right? Like, that's the other thing. The placebo effects, it could be all sorts of things. It could be all sorts of reasons. We can't just assume, because one event followed another, that one thing caused the other.
That is a logical fallacy, but most people don't get that. Most people are like, well, it happened, so it must happen.
Also, remember before I was telling you that what's true for the group must be true for the individual? The opposite logical fallacy is the fallacy of composition. Which is basically what's true for an individual must be true for the group. If it worked for one person, it will work for everybody. That's the logical fallacy of composition.
And, you know, we see this all the time. An example that I read about, if I'm honest, I didn't come up with this on my own, was if you're at a concert, right? And one person stands up at a concert, and they can see better. And so, that means that, you know, the assumption then, the logical assumption would be, well, if you stand up, you'll be able to see better, everyone will be able to see, so just stand up, and you'll be able to see better, but that's not true. If everyone stands up, no one can see better. If everyone's standing up, no one can see.
Exactly the same thing is happening, it's just now you're all standing instead of sitting, right? Now, this is the fallacy of composition. Oh, you know, yeah, it'll work. What's true for the individual must be true for the entire group. That is not the case at all. Oftentimes, it is the opposite.
And people make these really, what we call, hasty generalizations. Right? They see something. I mean, I see this all the time. Of course it's possible to sustain weight loss. I say weight loss is unsustainable, and they'll go, ridiculous. Of course it's possible to sustain weight loss. You know, I've seen it, I've come across people who have lost weight and kept it off.
And I'm like, oh, cool, you've come across people. Who? Oh, you know, I saw someone on social media. Oh, social media, the bastion of truth, of course, it must be true if it was on social media. Oh, so-and-so, you know, auntie, third cousin, twice removed, I don't know. Okay, so some random individual out there that you may have come across in real life, or quite often just came across on social media, or read an article about them, or heard a story, and of course, when you hear a story, you have to assume it's true, right? We can't, they can't possibly be lying or misrepresenting, or any of those things. Of course not. Why would they? But anyway, even if you came across one or two people, just because that's the case, that doesn't mean anything, right? When you make some big, broad, sweeping statement based on a handful of examples, oftentimes unverified examples, rather than relying on the actual extensive research to back up the claim, then that's a logical error. That's bullshit. One anecdote does not constitute evidence.
Several anecdotes don't constitute evidence. In fact, anecdotal evidence is not real evidence, unless, you know, sometimes it's the only evidence, but in this case it's not.
In this case, we have evidence dating back to the 1980s, 1990s, which showed conclusively that weight loss is not sustainable. I've got studies from 1993 that I quote quite often. Weight loss is not sustainable, it says. There's just not, almost everyone gains weight back within 5 years. Most people within the first year. Up to two-thirds of people end up heavier than when they first started. Like, these are just, this is based on actual evidence. Not on some story that you heard or read somewhere, some random person on the street. And of course there will be exceptions to the rules, there are exceptions to every rule, but evidence is, you know, facts, when they're overwhelming.
When you have overwhelming evidence, it's fair to say that anything other than that overwhelming evidence is a hasty generalisation. Wishful thinking, if you like.
So, oftentimes that's enough, but sometimes it's not, and this is when the haters come in. You know, people, when they hear you use logic and evidence and facts to defend a point of view that they really cannot stand, for all sorts of reasons. They can't stand it because of what it says about them. They can't stand it because what it says about me, they can't stand it because of what it says about the world around them. They just can't stand it.
And so that's when they start to attack. And in many ways, attack, manipulate. The most common one is you're just making excuses because you don't want to take responsibility for your health. You're just lazy, you lack self-discipline. It's just wishful thinking.
This is an ad hominem logical fallacy. That is the technical term. It is a statement that attempts to invalidate your opponent's position based on personal traits, rather than logic.
So I'm fat, therefore people try to invalidate my opinion by saying, you know, fat, therefore. Yeah? And they don't use logic, they just make assumptions about me. And this type of argument is a diversion. It's a diversion tactic. It's a sign that you're winning an argument, in fairness, but it's also really unpleasant.
So it's, on the one hand, you're like, ooh! I'm winning. But on the other hand, it's not a pleasant way to win. I'd rather not be in this conversation. Oftentimes, when people start saying that, I just laugh in their face and walk off, because I've got nothing more to say to these people. I can tell that they have nothing to offer me. And this is actually one of the things that comes up a lot is most of the times when I'm having these conversations with people, I'm having them with people that really don't have anything to offer me. They're not gonna say anything, or do anything, or come up with something that I've never heard before.
These are not, like, you know, sometimes you have an argument with someone, or a conversation with someone about something, and they'll make some really good points, and you'll be like, oh, shit, I never thought about that before. And I love these kind of conversations, where we're sharing ideas and beliefs and opinions and experiences and also, like, evidence, because we're all experts in our own thing, right?
I thought I knew something, and then someone tells me something, and I'm like, oh, wow! That's just opened up a whole new way of thinking or belief, but when I'm having these kind of arguments, especially when someone just goes, oh, you don't want to take responsibility for your health, I know they have nothing to offer me. This is a sign that they have nothing to offer me. Because if this is the best you can come up with, then you, for want of a better word, you're beneath me.
You are literally beneath me, and I know that that might sound a bit arrogant or whatever, but it's true. I clearly know more about this shit than you do. I don't know more about everything, but this shit I know more about than you do. So, when somebody kind of comes up with this ridiculous argument, this diversion tactic, that avoids genuine debate and shifts the focus to some irrelevant personal detail, you know, my character, you know, questions my motivation, says something about my background, then, yeah, I just walk away. But another option would be, like, that's an ad hominem argument. A person's character is really logically unrelated to the truth, you know, the veracity of their argument.
It doesn't matter who I am, I can still be telling the truth, right? I could still be using logic. I could still be using evidence. Regardless of who I am. Who I am shouldn't come into it, but of course, you know, people are weak, and people are, you know, the haters, they're weak.
They don't know what else to say when their worldview is challenged. And so, they will stoop to these mean tactics. And this is another one that people will do, which is much more manipulative, less aggressive, more manipulative. Which is, oh, I'm just concerned about your health.
Health concern trolling, which is like, we don't hate you, we love you! We just, we're just concerned about your health. No, you know. This kind of attempt to sway my opinion by provoking me emotionally, it's another logical fallacy, believe it or not, it's an appeal to pity, that's what it's called, an appeal to pity.
Using sort of emotional concerns, often false concerns. Let's face it, they don't actually give a shit about health. But they're using those concerns to justify harmful treatment, to justify discrimination, to justify, you know, causing harm.
Again, this is a diversion tactic. This is emotional manipulation 101, and it's not true. It's never true. They don't, I mean, they might, these people may care about your health. I'm not saying they don't. There might be some people out there who genuinely do care about you, and they think they're doing you a favor, but they're not.
They're not doing you a favor, they're causing you harm. They're never right, they're always wrong. And again, my response is usually, you don't care about my health, don't be ridiculous. Or I might say my health is none of your business. Or, I might say, what is health? What do you mean by health?
And start questioning them about that, because that's the other thing, is that you'll notice that a lot of times these arguments, these people, you know, talking shit, basically, will use statements, they will use words that are deliberately designed to mislead or confuse you. They'll use words that have multiple meanings, that have multiple interpretations. They can be very unclear. Oftentimes, they'll use lots of words, but the words don't make sense, and then you think, like, am I being stupid here? Like, am I the one that, you know, most, not everyone, but a lot of people will assume, a lot of us, I should say, will assume. Well, it's me. I, you know, I'm the one, as opposed to you're just talking shit.
And so you need to look out for these words. There are certain words, keywords that can have lots of different meanings, and what I will do if I decide to engage in a conversation or a debate, is I will specifically listen for those words, and I will pick out those words, and I'll go define what you mean by that. What do you mean by?
Here is a selection of those words that I look for. Number one, health. Alright then. Define health. Good luck with it. Just the minute you go, alright, can you tell me what you mean by health? The panic. You can see it in their eyes. Because health is impossible to define, not impossible, but, you know, a lot of people have tried and failed, a lot of experts have tried and failed to define health, to come up with a kind of all-encompassing definition. So, they're not going to be able to.
Another word is risk. Ooh, risk can mean so many things! Oh, your risk! Oh, what risk? Like, I start talking about relative risk versus absolute risk, which I'm sure you've heard me talk about before, you know, just because you say that there's a 17% reduction in my risk, what risk? What's my actual risk? How do you know what my risk is? How can you calculate my risk? Is it possible to calculate risk? What do you mean by risk? Ooh! That can be quite tricky. Lifestyle, ugh!
Lifestyle. Just, like, what does that mean? You know, you've got, like, lifestyle magazines, which focus on interior decoration, but that's not what they mean. When they say lifestyle, they're talking about specific things. They're actually talking about diet and exercise. That's their version of lifestyle, which is really interesting, because there are so many other things that could fall under the umbrella of lifestyle, but that's not what they mean. So, I will often pick apart that word. Overweight.
I love overweight because when they talk about overweight, I'll go, oh, so if you make a statement about over anything, that must mean that there is a normal something, right? Normal weight. For someone to be overweight, there must be a normal weight. For someone to be underweight, there must be a normal weight as well.
So, cool. I might sometimes ask, what is a normal weight? And they'll go, oh, well, you know, it's, and usually they'll come back to BMI. And then, if I'm really in the mood, I will tell them all the reasons why the BMI is problematic, up to and including the fact that we have now almost universally as a medical community, rejected the BMI as being completely and utterly useless. It doesn't really tell you anything about health.
So then, you know, they struggle with what is normal? Who defines normal? Where? And if you really want to get into it, who first decided what was normal? Who decided what is normal? And I, I mean, I've done a great amount of research into the history, like, how we decided what was normal weight and what wasn't. And what is most interesting about the history is that it comes from life insurance companies, it comes from actuarial data from the beginning of the 20th century. What is most interesting is in the 1980s, the same life insurance companies that convinced us that this was a normal weight suddenly turned around and went, oops. Turns out we might be wrong. Actually, it's not what we first said it was.
But by that point in time, the medical community driven by the weight loss industry and pharmaceutical industry were so convinced that they were right, that they told the life insurance companies basically to fuck off. They just weren't interested.
So, the people who came up, the actual instigators of this whole healthy weight thing, admitted that they were wrong in the 1980s, and we didn't listen. Anyway, like I said, there's a book coming out one day, and you can read all about it there. Or you can go and research yourself, of course. Another word that gets bandied about all the time is a word I don't like to use, but I'm going to use it for the purposes of this podcast, and that is the term obesity.
Obesity, which, again, so many different meanings. Think about it. It could just be a BMI measurement, that's technically what it is. How do you define obesity? A BMI of over 30, right? Body mass index, for those who don't know what BMI is, you all know what BMI is. That's a statistic, it's a number, it's literally a statistical category. Just a number. Doesn't really mean anything. Oh, but it MUST mean something. So, it can, some people say it's, you know, excess fat. I don't know, well, it's excess. Again, excess means that there's a normal amount of fat, so what is a normal amount of fat?
And then they'll give you a number, and you go, cool, where did you come up with that number? Who told you? Where did that come from? Because at some point in time, somebody came up with a number. Always a round number. It's usually a multiple of 5. I don't know, what do people say? 15%, 20%? I don't know what people say. I don't pay attention to them, but there's a number. Okay, so, like, people below this are normal, and then there's always a number. But it's not a real one. So, um, some people will say obesity is a disease, and you go, cool, what disease?
Like, what is it? And then they'll talk about blood pressure and, you know, HbA1c, and I'll go, okay, so thin people with high blood pressure, are they obese? No. Okay. Fat people who don't have high blood pressure, are they obese? There's no logic. It's bullshit.
So, you know, we use the term obesity as a sort of, we say, well, this is the cause of health problems. That's what we say. But it's a really fucking circular argument here, again, another logical fallacy. Obesity is the cause of health problems. Why? Because people with health problems are obese. That is a circular argument.
You need to prove that being fat causes health problems, which, as I said earlier on in the podcast, we have never been able to do. So, it is not a health problem. But we love to call it a health problem, we love to call it a medical condition, a disease. Oftentimes, what people actually mean when they say obesity is it's a moral failing. You've done something wrong. You are a failure, it is a moral failing, it's an aesthetic failure as well. You are ugly. You're lazy, you lack self-discipline, all of these things, all of these moral judgments that people have. Like, they don't want to say it, so they use the word obesity, but obesity just means fat.
So basically, there is no real definition. These kind of very unclear, confusing words, we call these equivocations. And they matter. They really matter, because they make weak arguments sound medical and scientific. They make these, like I said, these weak people that don't have anything interesting to say, aren't actually experts in any way. Haven't done any research, haven't even picked up a scientific journal. Haven't even listened. There was a conference, the Freiburg conference in 2015, where experts in obesity, quote-unquote obesity medicine came together, and all agreed that weight loss was pretty much impossible and unsustainable.
The experts, the people whose job it is to help people lose weight, went it's not really possible, is it? At a conference! If you've not read those papers, then don't have a conversation with me. I have nothing to say to you. But these weak arguments sound like good arguments, they sound medical, they sound scientific, because they use these words. These equivocations. So I like to pick these words apart.
They're also used to shift responsibility to patients, to people, to avoid examining their own biases. Because, you know, if you can use big words, then you can just sound like you know what you're talking about. And it justifies discrimination for the sake of discrimination.
And that's actually what I'm going to be talking about in next week's episode, is how we, as a society, justify discrimination. I've got 10 reasons, 10 arguments that people make. And I am gonna disprove all of those arguments, so I hope that the haters will be paying attention, will be listening, will be following along. I hope you'll have lots to say. Probably come up with some ad hominem arguments. You're just wishful thinking, you're fat, good luck with that. Oh, I'm just concerned about your health! Or they'll just use big words to make themselves sound clever.
And I'm looking forward to it. I really am. I relish the opportunity.
Anyway, folks, it's that time of the year. I have, last year I recorded a group of pep talks. I entitled it Fat, Festive, and Fierce. Just a group of pep talks for people who just need a little bit of support for the holidays. I don't know if that's you, I don't know if you're struggling, I don't know if you've got people who are saying shitty things, or doing shitty things, or you know, maybe you're just feeling a bit overwhelmed. Four lovely little pep talks.
No homework, no stress, very simple, all compiled together, all you have to do is literally click a button and you can listen to them. And, yeah. I have those on sale at the moment. If you're interested in purchasing them, then, click the link in the show notes, or click the link in the newsletter, or go to my Instagram account, and click the link in my bio, or go to my website and click the link there. I don't know, find a link, click it, order it, download it, it's yours, straight away, you can listen to it.
When you need it, as you need it. Although I am slowing down a little bit, I do have perhaps one or two spots in December for anyone who needs a consultation. Because healthcare doesn't stop for the holidays, does it? People are going to be denying you your rights, even up to and including December 25th, so if you need support, bear in mind that January is coming.
Next month, I will, obviously have some more support and information available for the whole new year, new you bullshit. Hopefully a lot of you who follow me regularly know better than to fall for the New Year stuff. But you might be new to the podcast, or it might be that, you know, even though you know these things, you still feel overwhelmed by it, so I will endeavor to support you through that. I don't know what I'm talking about. I think I need to stop now.
Alright, thanks very much for listening, and I'll see you next week.