#body autonomy

[fatliberation]

Cover photo courtesy of NAAFA Newsletter, 1979. Vol. VII, Issue No. 2 & 3.

Fat Rights? Fat Chance! A History of Fat Liberation In The United States From 1967-1974

by @fatliberation

During the height of the Vietnam War, two months before Woodstock, one month before the moon landing, and just two weeks before the Stonewall Rebellion took place merely twenty miles away, another thread of U.S. history was quietly being written. On June 13th, 1969, an engineering student with no prior experience in political organizing and his fat comrades gathered in Westbury, N.Y. and ratified a constitution for a new human rights movement that was deemed shocking, laughable, and entirely unheard of.

Hey, everybody! My new article is finally finished and available to pre-read on ko-fi for $5. This is a dense history of organized fat activism in the U.S., focused on the late 60s to mid 70s. Learn about the Central Park Fat-In, the beginnings of the world’s first-documented fat rights organization, and the concurrent movement of feminist fat resistance led by queer practitioners of Radical Therapy (and more).

Like always, this article will eventually be unlocked for free, most likely in two or three months, depending on pre-sales. If you benefit from my work and are feeling resourced, consider making yours a recurring monthly tip so you don't lose access to my articles after 30 days.

I hope you enjoy the article and learn something new about fat history!

Fat Rights? Fat Chance! A History of Fat Liberation

@fatliberation published a supporter-only post on Ko-fi!

[tiktoks-i-enjoyed]

Posted by @ savethetomboy (she/her).

[shamebats]

Not calling it "women's health" and instead using terms like gynecology, reproductive health, menstrual health etc. isn't going to harm cis girls & women but you know what will? Fear-mongering campaigns in the media perpetuating the idea that people who were afab are not capable of and should not be allowed to be making permanent medical decisions re: their own bodies (unless said decision is to get pregnant).

[funnier-as-a-feedist]

Feedism isn't just fat liberation, it's body autonomy. It's sex positivity. If someone tells you they're gaining weight on purpose, whether for sexual reasons or not, you need to be able to recognize their right to do whatever they want to their body whether it personally squicks you out or not.

[hyperlexichypatia]

If making kids do things is a violation of autonomy does that mean my parents shouldn’t have been making me brush my hair, even though I hated it but I also let the knots just clump on my head to the point of pain? For the record, I look back on that and see my child self as in the wrong. What’s to stop kids from refusing to bathe or take basic care of themselves if they have that level of autonomy so young?

Okay, let me go from the general to the specific, here.

An important concept in discussions of law, public policy, etc. is the distinction between something being generally permitted and generally forbidden. The key difference is between something people are generally permitted to do, with specific exceptions and regulations, and something people are generally forbidden from doing, with certain exceptions. Right?

So in the U.S., and in most countries, parents and guardians doing whatever they want to their children is generally permitted. Unless there is a specific exception carved out (a specific law, or a specific court ruling, or a specific challenge to those parents by social services), parents can do whatever they want to their children. By contrast, children exercising bodily autonomy is generally forbidden. Children have no general right to their own bodies except under specific, narrow circumstances.

That's a problem.

Now, a recurring theme that I talk about with youthlib, psych abolition, radical liberal socialism, and other stuff I believe, is that coercion is inherently harmful, even if it's necessary.

Like, sometimes a decision has to be made for someone who can't communicate (a baby, an unconscious person, etc.), and that's necessary -- but it's still harmful. And it's important to know that. That's just an important starting point. Because knowing that coercion, even in limited circumstances where it's necessary, is still harmful, means that it's important to minimize it.

What I'm longwindedly saying is that I want to flip the script around children and coercion.

Instead of "Is it justified to coerce a child in XYZ circumstance?" I want to ask "How can a caregiver meet a child's need with minimal (or if possible, no) coercion?"

So. To get at your question. What are some alternative ways to prevent a child from getting knotted hair that don't involve coercing them? Explaining the dangers of knotted hair so they understand it? A wide toothed comb that hurts less? A short haircut?

[sceptixfakemon]

wolves with great opinions prints here

[mountainrusing]

sex positivity is not about telling everyone to have sex. it’s about making sure people who choose to enter sexual relationships do so in a healthy, consensual and judgement-free manner. it’s about making conversations that discuss sex liberal and open in order to promote safety and inclusion, and these conversations will include the opinions of people who don’t want sex.

sex positivity validates everyone’s feelings towards sex, ensuring that people are happy with what they feel personally, respect what other people feel personally, and don’t force their views onto anyone else. sex positivity rejects classifying any personal view on sex as “abnormal” and seeks to promote the fact that every sexuality is not sinful, not dirty, simply natural and real.

being asexual and being sex positive isn’t mutually exclusive.

[rikaklassen]

Originally reposted from Cohost. Drawn by @cherryinthesun.