It seems on here like an awful lot of overweight people on WLI are determined to see others as being judgemental and moralistic about weight -- and as wanting to 'deny them' drugs out of a kind of puritanism or resentment.
That mindset makes me think that online conversations among WLI users (or would-be users) have developed a sort of in-group defensive thinking where everyone reassures everyone else by doubling down on a very exaggerated and unnuanced worldview, a form of thinking that frees posters from having to deal with difficult questions. It is just one more instance of the way in which online talk creates polarisation and a sense of victimhood on so many different issues.
I don't see any evidence of a moralistic attitude to weight on MN. Right across MN there has always been masses of evidence of people adopting an understanding and supportive attitude towards weight. I think posters who resent criticisms of WLI have to do quite a lot of work, in most cases, to 'construct' imagined hostility on the bases of comments they don't like.
It isn't judgemental or moralistic or uncompassionate to be concerned about the current prescribing model for these injections. People reach a BMI of 30 or more for all sorts of different reasons (including psychological and social reasons) - only some of them do so because of underlying metabolic issues that need pharmaceutical intervention . And yet this prescribing model makes a certain weight threshold the sole criterion for prescription -- and doesn't even provide failsafe methods of ensuring no-one gets the drugs without meeting this one criterion.
Isn't it more compassionate, rather than less, to feel concern for the apparently many people who are on this drug without proper professional interrogation of whether it is the right sort of help? As so often happens, the private sector is making a buck out of the collapse of NHS services (in this case, the inability of the NHS to provide proper, readily available, weight loss support). Why, in this particular case, are concerns about a lack of proper professional support and oversight - about the conversion of patients into consumers - presented as hostility towards the patients/consumers?
The only reason I can see for misrepresenting criticisms of the WLI explosion is that many users of WLI (who don't squarely meet what conscientious medical researchers would see as the appropriate criteria for using them) feel frightened and unsure about what they are doing, and have to defend themselves against that fear by misrepresenting any concerns