From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

>this article[edit]

It's a non-issue. Note how it's only in English (fatmasters) and Hebrew (le serious businessman). >Wikipedia anno 2014 >mfw — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


I really think that this article should be expanded because weight descrimination is very, very common. The article isn't bad or anything, I just think it's a big issue and deserves more attention than it's currently getting.CerealBabyMilk 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


It was my understanding that the expression "overweight" can be considered weightist when used in such a generalized context. Perhaps the substitution of "heavy", or a similarly unloaded word, for overweight would be appropriate in this article. Anlala 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Overweight" certainly implies a norm to which the person is being compared. As a lifelong fatty, I prefer "fat." Or perhaps "buxom" or "rotund" or "stout" some other descriptive word that is not comparative and also not a euphemism (like "heavy").Sblackmun 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What about underweight people?[edit]

Although I do see that weightism against perhaps more buxom individuals is much more common -- the discrimination against underweight people is just as bad when it does happen; myself being a victim. Such as being accused of being anorexic/bulimic (I've had a few people call me such things even out in public), even though all my life I've been underweight and just don't gain weight no matter how much I eat (nor do I want to gain weight; I'm happy with my weight and other people should be, too.) I'm sure you would get annoyed of hearing "Oh my God, you need to eat, honey! Put some meat on those bones" over and over again, just as much as more heavier people would get annoyed of hearing "You need to stop eating so much, and lay off the sweets" or something along those lines. (Yeeh (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Here's the difference, though, is that you will never be told you are worthless because of your weight, you will never be denied a job because of your weight. People will never scream hate slurs out of their car at you. What you describe is not discrimination, just the annoying clucking of mother hens. Stregamama (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just false. Underweight people also have a need for a healthy level of self-esteem and being constantly harrassed about one's weight can really affect it. It would seem that you, "Stregamama", are probably not underweight and as such have not been a victim of this form of weight bias; this may explain your uninformed comment, but not your lack of empathy. (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am underweight, and have been discriminated against due to my weight. For you to say that weightism only applies to the obese, is ridiculous (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that there should be the explicit identification of all kinds of weightism, not just of overweight people but of underweight people too (with reference to the acceptable average weight). --CLStoeger (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLStoegs (talkcontribs)

Besides two sentences, this article says nothing of discrimination toward thin people specifically. I have never heard of discrimination in this way, besides in cases of anorexia and bulimia. I would consider an adult of around 100 pounds to be thin, and people at that weight are healthy. I don't think just being thin is discriminated against, since anorexia is caused by the lack of stigma for being thin. Gatonom Nyan 03:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


This is definitely an important issue to write about, but I would be careful saying things like (paraphrased)"obese people usually get paid less for doing the same work" without some cited examples. It certainly doesn't work like that in the Australian workforce! Unless it's in cash-in-hand work, like bar work or prostitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerspiders (talkcontribs) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Common, or made up?[edit]

"Common weight-based stereotypes of non-obese persons are that non-obese persons are unattractive, anorexic, unhealthy, diet and/or exercise excessively."

This needs a citation. I'm not believing this until someone can prove that yes, these are "common stereotypes" and not just things that someone made up to balance out the article. There is a huge difference between non-obese (which technically comprises over 90% of the population, but at least the vast majority) and anorexic people.KBurchfiel (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You mention a good point! For example, I would disagree with obese people being stereotyped as being "lazy, lack self-discipline, and have poor willpower". There is a common stereo-type where I live (in Australia) that fat people are jolly, but this would probably be different between every family, friendship group, etc and does not seem worthy of inclusion. Likewise, just because the person who wrote the article stereotypes non-obese people as unattractive, anorexic, unhealthy and excessively dieting/exercising does not mean that everyone does. -- (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Hi, proposing that "Sizism" be merged into "Weightism".

These two pages are about the very same topic. Yet, there are two pages.

Actually, it gets worse.

There are three pages. "Anti-fat bias".....

At least move "Sizism" into "Weightism" first, and then move the single page into the more specific "Anti-fat bias", or a page of a similar name (hopefully without an "ism").

We've been discussing the issue in the discrimination sidebar: Bucoli (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see my addition to the discrimination sidebar reform considerations. Weightism is a general form againist people by weight thin or fat. Sizeism is a combination of Heightism and Weightism. Anti-Fat bias are ONLY againist fat not the thin. - (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I comprimise, nominate sizeism for deletion. It would not make sense to merge it in here because everything about height discrimination would be irrelevent and deleted. Please, as a sign of mercy just delete the page. I started that page because originally the hyperlink sizeism led to the Fat Acceptance Movement article. I believed (along with several others) this was unfair because it denied thin sizeism. I then looked it up on google and realized according to every source it is height and weight. So please just delete it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I say the two are combined, they're synonymous. (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made changes to the sizeism page to distinguish it from weightism/weight-bias. They are not the same. Sizeism is the parent term for specific types of of size discrimination such as heightism or weightism. --CLStoeger (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLStoegs (talkcontribs)

Affirmation not correlated to citation[edit]

The sentence The connection of fatness with financial well-being persists today in some less-developed countries.[3] links to an article about a black artist who paints fat women and he says:

"In the past, fat was linked to prosperity."

1. An artist is not scientific or empirical evidence of anything. 2. He says in the past, not in the present in Africa.

The fourth citation is about an african country regressing towards sexist traditions because of a more reppressive government. "since a military junta took over the West African country." "Aminetou Mint Ely, a women's rights campaigner, said girls as young as five were still being subjected to the tradition of leblouh every year. The practice sees them tortured into swallowing gargantuan amounts of food and liquid - and consuming their vomit if they reject it."

This article is not worthy of wikipedia. (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


I dont think it is fair to use the word discrimination to describe what Happens to very overweight People when for example they dont get a Job. Any overweight Person can lose weight by eating less, eating better or doing more exercise. You cant avoid Gender or Race discrimination that Way. That is a Big difference. Anyone is free to be overweight but must also accept the conse quences of her or his actions. I have the Feeling that the People Writing this Page are Not prepared to Take Responsibility for their own actions and their own Bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What about religion? That is one hundred percent a choice. And for your informaion I'm 125 pounds. I support this page because I know that people are oppressed. And what more I'm other minorities including being ethnically and religiously Jewish and transgender so I understand what you are saying but it isn't one hundred percent controllable. It can be very difficult to lose weight.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Propose that this be merged into Anti-fat bias[edit]

There is a huge overlap between this article and Anti-fat bias. The latter is a much better article -- it has sources, is generally well written, and is well-structured. The weightism article has no inline sources except one section, and has large parts which need to be rewritten. I will do the merge shortly if there are no objections. Celuici (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you partially however I would also like to say that potentially weightism is a broader concept then Anti-Fat bias? How do you plan to address non-fat weightism?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

New article I suppose -- but if you read the article there is hardly any content about non-fat weightism. Celuici (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Connection with Sizeism[edit]

I'm not sure if the people who are removing Size discrimination from the related section are actually reading it. This article is about a more general form of discrimination of which weightism is a part therefore it is related. It is not the same thing any more than penguin and bird are. However penguin and bird are still related topics to each other. Please analyze both articles before making decisions such as calling them the same thing.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rainbowofpeace: You're both correct and incorrect. Sizeism and weightism are two different things entirely. However, there seems to be a problem with the software, as I've shown below. Follow both links:
To resolve this confusion, shall we modify the redirect (Sizeism) so it points to the intended page (Size discrimination)? I don't mind doing it if you like. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and did that (probably should have done that in the first place). Thank you, by the way, for coming to the talk page rather than edit warring. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)