Issues with the “you can only be good at one” rhetoric

Please note: The intention and message of this blog post is not “anti-recovery” or “pro-ED", nor is it to deny the challenges and impacts of navigating / experiencing an ED. Rather, it is to explore the harms of common messages and oversimplifications; recognise another way that ableism and sanism pervade the ED space; and gently invite folks working in this space to think deeply and critically about what we’re taught, what we share, and what it conveys.

——————————

I often see posts with messages like “you can only be good at one: having an eating disorder, or having a meaningful life”. One post in particular stood out to me recently. It posited that people cannot live by their values, or pursue and achieve their goals, or have meaningful relationships if they also have an ED; that EDs don't serve people; and that harm reduction involves taking steps to stay safe while working toward full recovery.

I fundamentally disagree with this rhetoric. Although it may seem motivational at first glance, such messages replicate and reinforce harmful myths that have long been used coercively within ED treatment, and it can cause a multitude of harms.

You can have an ED, and still hold fiercely to your values with great integrity and care.

EDs are trauma responses, social justice issues, and ways of surviving. People do not inherently become unable to connect to, or live congruently with, their values when they have an ED. I can say from personal experience that many folk I know who have or had an ED hold strong values with immense heart. These values can also be the things tethering someone to life.

This is not to say that EDs don’t also bring distress or dissonance regarding values; this, of course, can occur, and can be extremely painful when it does. However, to claim that someone simply cannot live by their values if they’re experiencing an ED is untrue and dehumanising.

You can have an ED, and have genuine, meaningful relationships and connections.

People with EDs can be phenomenal friends, siblings, parents, partners, carers, advocates, and community members - not because of whether or not they have an ED, but because of who they are at their core. When I think of folks I know with EDs, they are some of the funniest, fiercest, kindest, bravest, most loving, and most genuine souls I know, and I care for and value them regardless of their ED.

Yes, EDs can bring relational isolation and pain; I have experienced this first-hand. But the myth that people with EDs are fundamentally incapable of meaningful relationships is devaluing, and can spur isolation, self-criticism, and shame.

You can have an ED, and still pursue (and be deserving of) your hopes & goals.

People do not automatically stop caring, creating, dreaming, fighting, or being capable of things when they have an ED. Yes, EDs may be incompatible with some goals / pursuits, and at times may be “all-consuming”. However, telling people they’ll “never be able to form relationships, study, work, travel, build a future, or be happy” if they have an ED is a threat-based narrative that erases folks’ agency, achievements, and dignity, and increases risk of hopelessness, suicidality, and unaliving.

The ways people pursue their goals might look different from what’s deemed “the norm” - paced differently, supported, adapted, disabled - but whatever shape it takes is no less meaningful, real, or valid.

Eating disorders are not just forms of “disconnection” or “numbing out.”

Again, EDs are trauma responses, social justice issues, and ways of surviving. I do not label or view EDs as “maladaptive”, because all forms of survival are adaptive in their own way.

To present the ultimatum of “choose the one that serves your life” (i.e. "choose recovery, now”) ignores the fact that the ED may well be serving a protective, life-saving function for someone.

We can’t ask someone to drop their only coping or survival tools in absence of other supports; to do so is clinically reckless, and comes from a place of great privilege that not all have access to.

Harm reduction is not "small steps that support safety while working to recovery”.

To describe it as such indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what harm reduction is, and implies / imposes that ultimately, all people should pursue or achieve recovery as their goal.

Harm reduction is a life-preserving approach that aims to reduce risk and keep people safer, irrespective of where they’re at. It understands the protective functions of EDs; supports autonomy and self-determination; understands and respects that not everyone will be in a position to recover (due to accessibility, readiness, safety, and more); and values and supports quality of life regardless of “progress” or recovery.

Acknowledging this complexity doesn’t mean we’re saying “life’s great with an ED”.

Rather, naming that people with EDs can still live meaningfully simply rejects the idea that someone’s life lacks worth until - or unless - they recover. Recognising that people can still hold values, relationships, purpose, and agency while living with an ED is not the same as glamourising, minimising, or denying the difficulty and pain EDs can also bring.

EDs can be consuming, disabling, scary, dangerous, exhausting, isolating, and / or incompatible with some dreams. Harm reduction, change, safety-building, and / or ED alleviation can open possibilities.

For some, however, recovery can bring its own challenges (especially when people lose a coping mechanism without being offered adequate support or alternatives).

The “you can be good at an ED, or you can have a good life” dichotomy also ignores the social justice issues shaping EDs: trauma, oppression, colonialism, fascism, classism, capitalism, poverty, ableism, racism, queerphobia, transphobia, weight bias, misogyny, discrimination, inadequate supports, lack of access, unmet needs, and more.

When something says “just choose recovery, and life opens up”, it overlooks the structural barriers and violence that may make recovery unsafe, unaffordable, or otherwise inaccessible for many.

The idea that people with EDs are unable to identify or live by their values, form meaningful relationships, have quality of life, or pursue what’s important to them unless they recover echoes dangerous, ableist rhetoric.

Many people live meaningful lives while still navigating an ED, especially if supported through compassionate, person-centred harm reduction, and anti-ableist, anti-sanist, relational care. It’s essential that we recognise and remember this - meeting people where they’re at, supporting them with dignity, safety, and humanity, and prioritising quality of life - regardless of who they are or what their circumstances may be.

——————————

This blog post is the original work, content, and intellectual property of Lumen Gorrie / the Appetite for Change Project. You may not copy, plagiarise, or reproduce this blog post (in part, or in whole), and you may not alter it, sell it, offer it for sale, or claim it as your own. No generative AI was used in the conceptualisation or creation of this post.