The normalization of mental illness

More like the lionization, the beatification of it, actually.

Gender studies professor claims combatting obesity is 'fatphobic,' blasts agenda against fatness
A Canadian professor who specializes in "fat studies" claimed that aiming for an obesity-free future was "fatphobic" and blasted the "biopolitics" agenda as an attack against fat people.

Fady Shanouda is an associate professor at the Feminist Institute of Social Transformation at Carleton University in Canada. Shanouda "draws on feminist new materialism" to examine the intersections between "fat studies, "colonialism, racism…, and queer- and transphobia."

The Critical Disability Studies scholar wrote that it was "fatphobic" to have a public health conversation and to tamp down on obesity, according to a Monday article in The Conversation.

Being overweight or obese increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, joint problems, liver disease, gallstones, some types of cancer, and sleep and breathing problems, according to the NIH.

In particular, Shanouda believes the marketing of the drug Ozempic – as a method to combat obesity – was the latest example of fatphobia in the culture.

"The latest wonder drug…[was] invented to help diabetics regulate blood glucose levels, but has the notable side-effect of severe weight loss. It has been heralded by many to culminate in the elimination of fat bodies. The fatphobia that undergirds such a proclamation isn’t new," Shanouda said.

"What makes this moment different from the others, however, is the dangerous rhetoric in which it is lodged. This rhetoric elevates the banal and commonplace fat-shaming that fat people must endure and resist to an unprecedented level," the professor added.

The professor lamented how the effectiveness of obesity treatments could eliminate "fat activism" and "the fat liberation movement.”

He added that treatments for "the so-called obesity epidemic" were "steeped in fat-hatred."

As any reasonable person would expect, the blubbery, effeminate “scholar" in the accompanying photo looks to be the very picture of health, both mental and physical. Ahh, but one example does not a trend make, you say. And of course you would be right about that.

Transgender operations nearly tripled from 2016 to 2019 due to Obama-era policies: study
The number of gender surgeries in the US nearly tripled in the three years up until 2019 — driven by insurance policy changes introduced by former President Barack Obama, a new study says.

Only around 4,550 Americans sought such sex-change surgeries in 2016 — a number that shot up to more than 13,000 by 2019, according to a Columbia University study published Wednesday in JAMA Network Open.

“Consistent with prior studies, we identified a remarkable increase in the number” of such procedures, study author Dr. Jason Wright wrote.

“These findings suggest that the number of procedures performed in the US has increased dramatically, nearly tripling from 2016 to 2019.”

The tripling of cases seen in the study “is likely due in part to federal and state laws requiring coverage of transition-related care,” Wright wrote of Obama administration policies to expand insurance coverage for transgender care.

The study included breast and chest procedures, genital reconstructive procedures and other facial and cosmetic surgical procedures. It did not consider the use of puberty blockers or hormone treatments.

The rise dipped slightly in 2020, to 12,800 procedures — still close to triple the 2016 number — which is “likely reflective of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Wright wrote of the final year examined in his report.

And if those two examples—of a steadily-metastasizing number—of daylight barking madness being not just pitied, not just tolerated, but actively endorsed by the ruling political megalith and its pet-poodle media aren’t enough to convince you, Glenn Reynolds would like a word regarding what’s going on here.

Neurosis and the Curley Effect
The politics of mental health, and the mental health of politics

So I’ve been thinking: Is there a link between shrinking marriage rates, the proliferation of neurosis, and the Curley Effect?

Just maybe.

Looking around at our politics, it’s hard not to feel that there’s an increasingly neurotic strain to them. During Covid, we had a lot of policies that were designed to make people feel safe, even if their feelings were irrational.

As Tyler Cowen observes, “I’ve said this before, but the evidence for the proposition continues to mount: current political debate in America cannot be understood without the concept of neuroticism — as a formal concept from personality psychology — front and center.’

Reading all of these pieces I’m seeing a story that goes something like this: Depressed, neurotic people (especially single women) are more likely to support Democrats. Democrats support policies and messaging that produce more depressed, neurotic people, especially single women.

Now maybe this is an accident, but maybe it isn’t. Enter the “Curley Effect.” As this Harvard paper notes, “James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston, used wasteful redistribution to his poor Irish constituents and incendiary rhetoric to encourage richer citizens to emigrate from Boston, thereby shaping the electorate in his favor. As a consequence, Boston stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections...We call this strategy—increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies—the Curley effect. But it is hardly unique to Curley.”

Making the populace (especially women) more fearful, depressed, and neurotic is undoubtedly bad for societal wealth and happiness. But does it yield votes for Democrats? Clearly yes. Are they doing it on purpose?

I’m inclined to say yes to that too, myself. But I readily concede that it could also be because D卐M☭CRATs are all just bugfuck fucking nuts. No reason it can’t be both, natch.