Eating disorder (ED) treatment sits at an uneasy intersection: medicine and meaning, physiology and identity, personal suffering and social narrative. In that terrain, clinician activism can be a force for good, reducing stigma, broadening access, and challenging harmful norms.

But there is a predictable failure mode when activism frameworks become not just a tool, but a clinician’s very identity. In the eating disorder community, particularly where more militant clinician activists strongly endorse the Health at Every Size (HAES) principles which have been long abandoned by the ASDAH and “White Supremacy Culture” frameworks, identity fusion can undermine clinical objectivity and, in turn, inhibit recovery.

The Core Dynamic: Identity Fusion in Clinician-Activism

Identity fusion (also described as role engulfment, overidentification, or enmeshment) occurs when “the cause” becomes inseparable from “the self.” The clinician activist no longer merely uses a framework; they become and are the framework. They view disagreement or complexity as an existential threat not to an idea, but to their very own identity. In doing so, professional, objective debate becomes impossible since the disagreement is no longer about an eating disorder issue. It is perceived to be about the person.

In that state, clinical questions are vulnerable to moralization:

• A clinical disagreement becomes “harm.”
• A treatment trade off becomes “violence.”
• A patient’s ambivalence becomes “internalized oppression.”
• A colleague’s caution becomes “complicity.”

None of this requires malice although identity fusion is inevitably morphing into a malice-based reality. It arises from the same impulse that draws many clinicians into ED work: a commitment to relieve suffering and protect vulnerable people. The problem is that fused identity tends to produce epistemic lock-in, a narrowing of what counts as legitimate evidence, clinically relevant language, and/or acceptable outcomes.

And this results in harming patients.

7 Ways Militant Identity-fusion Harms Patients

1) Disagreement is improperly perceived as harm

When a professional fellow clinician asks about vitals, level of care, growth curves, or weight trajectory and your first move is moral accusation (“harmful,” “violent,” “unsafe”), you’ve replaced clinical reasoning with social control.

Impact: Teams stop speaking plainly. Errors persist longer. Patients inevitably deteriorate.

2) “Weight-neutral” becomes “weight-blind”

Stigma reduction is not the same as refusing clinically relevant data.

If your practice has blanket taboos, “never weigh,” “never discuss weight adjacent information,” “never document it,” “never acknowledge weight change even when medically relevant” … you are letting ideology override physiology.

Impact: Delayed recognition of instability, delayed escalation, preventable crises.

3) The framework becomes the differential diagnosis

If every case collapses into one explanation (diet culture, oppression, stigma) and alternative hypotheses are treated as betrayal, you’re no longer practicing medicine or psychotherapy … you’re practicing narrative enforcement.

Impact: Missed complexity of the intersection of ARFID, OCD, Autism, Trauma, substance use, GI-endocrine resulting in impaired and slower recovery.  

4) “Internalized ____” is used as a trump card

If a patient’s goals or fears are explained away as “internalized fatphobia,” “internalized white supremacy,” etc., without genuine exploration, you’re doing something coercive: you’re disqualifying the patient’s agency by definition.

Impact: Performance over honesty; more secrecy, more dropout, less change.

5) Outcomes are replaced with virtue

If you spend more time policing language, “calling in/out,” and attempting to establish moral positioning rather than tracking response to treatment, you’re drifting from care to identity maintenance.

Impact: Plans don’t update when they aren’t working. Patients stay stuck longer.

6) You punish measurement instead of fixing measurement

Measurement can be stigmatizing. The solution is not to ban it; it’s to do it professionally and competently:

• blinded weights when indicated
• trauma-informed procedures
• clear consent scripts
• a focus on vitals, labs, function, behaviors, impairment
• explicit thresholds for escalation

Impact when you ban instead: You lose safety signals and invite late-stage emergencies.

7) Institutions are treated like enemies, not systems to improve

If “White Supremacy Culture” language becomes a cudgel (to win arguments) rather than a tool (to identify disparities), it stops improving care and starts producing fear and paralysis.

Impact: Staff self-censor, teams fracture, equity work becomes theater rather than outcome based.

Why ED Recovery Is Especially Vulnerable to Identity Fusion

ED recovery is rarely linear and almost never purely ideological. It typically requires:

• honest assessment of risk (medical, behavioral, psychiatric)
• tolerating discomfort and ambiguity
• confronting avoidance and cognitive rigidity
• willingness to test beliefs against real-world outcomes

Identity-fused activism can unintentionally reinforce the very rigidity that EDs thrive on—only now it’s dressed up as ethics.

This type of identity activism generally manifests in at least five (5) different mechanisms.

Mechanism 1: Skewed Assessment—When “Weight-Neutral” Becomes “Weight-Blind”

When HAES was relevant, a HAES approach could help reduce shame and prevent naïve weight moralizing. But when weight neutrality becomes identity instead of strategy, it drifts into weight blindness. This is a refusal to engage with weight-adjacent data even when medically and diagnostically relevant.

That matters because ED medical risk is often not negotiable and manifests in:

• bradycardia, hypotension, syncope
• electrolyte abnormalities
• refeeding risk
• growth suppression in adolescents
• medication dosing and side effect profiles tied to physiological status

A blanket avoidance of weight trajectories, growth curves, or energy deficit indicators can lead to:

• under recognition of medical instability
• delayed escalation to higher levels of care
• misinterpretation of deterioration as “diet culture panic” rather than clinical decline

Paradoxically, this can increase the likelihood of crisis, i.e., forcing coercive interventions later that could have been avoided with earlier, calmer medical clarity.

Mechanism 2: Ideology First Treatment Planning—One Lens for Every Patient

Recovery requires individualized formulation: what maintains the disorder for this person, with this body, history, and risk profile?

When activism is fused with identity, the framework can become pre-emptive and totalizing:

• the formulation is decided in advance (oppression, diet culture, stigma)
• the clinical plan becomes a demonstration of ideological consistency
• alternative hypotheses are filtered out

In practice, this can look like:

• prioritizing worldview alignment over stabilization sequencing
• treating weight change (in either direction) as inherently suspect or unspeakable
• minimizing patient-specific drivers (trauma, OCD, autism/ARFID presentations, bipolarity, GI/endocrine issues, substance use, family dynamics)

The result is not “anti-oppressive care.” It is reduced differential diagnosis and reduced responsiveness to real-time clinical feedback—two reliable ways to prolong illness.

Mechanism 3: Speaking Taboos and Team Brittleness—When Consultation Becomes Risky

High quality ED treatment depends on teams: medical providers, therapists, dietitians, psychiatrists, higher levels of care and the family. Teams improve outcomes when they can speak plainly about risk, behaviors, and response to treatment.

Identity-fused activism can create taboo trade-offs: certain words and outcomes become morally contaminated. For example:

• “weight loss” and “weight gain” become unsayable even when clinically relevant
• “Obesity” cannot ever be said
• “medical necessity” is treated as a pretext for bias rather than sometimes a reality
• case presentations omit key data to avoid value conflict

Teams then develop avoidance patterns:

• clinicians don’t raise concerns that might trigger ideological conflict
• supervision becomes performative
• “safe/unsafe person” sorting replaces “strong/weak hypothesis”

When honest consultation becomes socially risky, subtle deterioration is easier to miss and recovery slows.

Mechanism 4: Therapy Turns into Recruitment—Undermining Autonomy and Informed Consent

A less recognized harm of identity-fused clinician activism is coercivealignment. Patients pick up on what a clinician needs them to believe to be considered “good,” “safe,” or “not harmful.”

This can inhibit recovery by:

• replacing curiosity with compliance
• encouraging patients to outsource thinking to ideology
• shaming patients for goals they genuinely hold (including weight-related goals, either direction)
• pathologizing disagreement as “internalized” something, rather than treating it as an authentic value conflict

In ED recovery, where identity and control are already central themes, this dynamic can be particularly damaging. The patient’s job becomes to perform correctness rather than do the hard work of change.

Mechanism 5: “White Supremacy Culture” as a Total Explanation … From Equity Tool to Clinical Shortcut

Equity frameworks can illuminate real disparities: who gets believed, who is labeled “noncompliant,” whose pain is minimized, whose ED is recognized early, and who can access care. Used well, these frameworks can sharpen clinical accountability.

Used as identity, they can become a clinical shortcut:

• a slogan substitutes for specific behavioral analysis
• staff anxiety about “getting it wrong” reduces honest assessment
• outcome metrics get replaced by moral language

In the worst case, the framework becomes an interpretive monopoly: if a patient isn’t improving, the explanation is always the system or diet culture, never the possibility that the chosen intervention isn’t working for this person.

Recovery requires feedback loops. Any framework that discourages revising the plan when the data demand it will predictably inhibit recovery.

What This Looks Like to Patients

Patients tend to experience the downstream effects in concrete ways:

• Confusion: “We’re not tracking the things that make me feel unsafe—why?”
• Silence: “Certain topics make my clinician tense, so I avoid them.”
• Pressure: “If I don’t adopt the right worldview, I’m seen as the problem.”
• Delay: “We stayed in the wrong level of care too long because talking about risk felt taboo.”
• Discouragement: “Treatment became about theory, not about me.”

And for many patients, the ED seizes on the contradiction: if the clinician won’t name physiological reality, the disorder will.

Guardrails: Keeping Advocacy Without Losing Objectivity

The remedy is not “less compassion.” It’s more structure; clinical, ethical, and team based.

1) Separate roles explicitly

Use an internal “two hats” model:

• Advocate hat: values, access, dignity, stigma reduction
• Clinician hat: differential diagnosis, risk, measurement, falsifiable hypotheses

2) Require a “facts-only” case summary

Before any formulation, write a short paragraph of observable data:

• vitals, labs, behaviors, impairment, psychiatric risk, trajectory
  Then add the narrative and equity lens.

3) Pre-commit to falsifiers

Ask: “What would make us change the plan within 2–4 weeks?”
Define escalation criteria clearly, including medical thresholds.

4) Build structured dissent into the team

Rotate a designated “alternative hypothesis” role in case conference. Formulate on alternative platform. This has the effect of reducing groupthink without moral conflict.

5) Make informed consent real

If a clinic centers a framework, say plainly what it means in practice:

• how monitoring is handled (e.g., blinded weights when needed)
• what outcomes are targeted
• what happens if the patient’s goals differ
• what alternatives exist

6) Translate equity frameworks into measurable clinic behaviors. In emphasizing this aspect, this keeps antiracism clinical rather than rhetorical.

Focus on:

• access inequities
• bias in diagnosis rates
• differential treatment dropout
• pain and symptom dismissal patterns
• culturally competent engagement.

Conclusion: Recovery Needs Reality, Not Ritual

Activism in the ED field has certainly helped some patients feel less shame and more seen. But when clinician activism becomes identity fusion—particularly around HAES and “White Supremacy Culture” frameworks, the risk is that treatment becomes less falsifiable, less individualized, and morally brittle.

ED recovery thrives on flexible thinking, accurate assessment, and iterative change. Any approach that turns clinical conversation into taboo, ideology into identity, or disagreement into harm will predictably inhibit recovery by narrowing what can be said, measured, reconsidered, and healed.

The goal is not to remove values from care. It is to keep values in their proper place and perspective: guiding dignity and equity, while preserving the clinician’s first obligation in ED treatment … to see clearly, respond to data, and help the patient recover in their own life, not inside someone else’s ideology.