I only have my own experience and that of my immediate circles to draw upon. And so far I've been told that merely describing who we are can only be interpreted as either an intentional attempt at harm, or harm out of ignorance. I don't think this is what you intended to claim, because you yourself said elsewhere in this thread that IF is polarizing because for some of us it is the exact kind of lifestyle intervention that is warranted - whereas for others it can be damaging. All of which was already baked into the conversation I already had with someone else above.

MH was glad IF worked for me, didn't feel the need to change my eating habits but pointed out that specific form of intentional dieting can be dangerous to specific people. This absolutely true and something I never disagreed with. I built on what she said, because I truly believe that everyone has to charter their own course in today's food environment. Our only real and major disagreement in the conversation we've had is the uses and limits of semaglutide, about which I hope my pessimism is unwarranted.

Edit: so from what I understand while you don't necessarily disagree with what I said, you take exception to terms I've used. Could you be more specific? I don't always discuss these things in english, so I'd be interested in specific instances of callous terminology I've employed.