zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
While some of this is questionable the removal of the word 'fat' is an important one.

'Fat' should not be used in kids books as a derogatory, or at all frankly. Fat is an incredibly important and necessary part of a healthy diet and should be treared accordingly. Training people to think of fat in the antiquated notions of bad cardiogy isnt useful.

So while this may have been a move centered around "body positivity", it serves and higher purpose.

>>upside+tn
Why shouldn't fat be normal descriptor of well fat people. Should we next ban thin? Or short and tall? Those also can also be derogatory.

>>Ekaros+cr
You seem to have missed the point. So allow me to reiterate: fat is a derogatory term which lends itself to the idea that food fats are bad.

Food fats aren't bad. So call them chubby or overweight or whatever you want. Using the word fat, when fat refers to a food product, gives dumb people the impression that fat is a bad thing.

Do you get this concept?

"Thin" isnt a food group. Short and tall, also not food groups.

>>upside+fW
This is just silly. Fat has two meanings. 1) noun, a type of animal tissue, which serves, as one of its purposes, to store excess energy from consumed food for leaner times. 2) adjective, describing a person or animal who has a lot of this tissue, possibly to a detrimental level. The first meaning is not derogatory (or shouldn't be), it's just a physiological description of a type of body tissue. It can be in the right places and of the 'right' amount, or it can be in the wrong places and too much or too little. That's when we get into the second meaning (derived from the first) where there is an excess and that excess is getting stored in the wrong places (both on the superficial level and deeper in organs and clogging up arteries & veins).

Thin, short and tall are all just straight adjectives. Them being that doesn't invalidate the double meaning of fat and somehow (by your logic) the word itself.