She carries a quiet strength beneath her skin, marked by the small Dexcom patch that tells a story of resilience and adaptation. Diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes just a year ago, she steps into a new world of vigilance and hope, embracing technology and lifestyle changes with a determined heart.
In the shared understanding of others who wear the same symbol, she finds unexpected connection and empathy—especially from those who live with Type 1 diabetes. Their curiosity and camaraderie open doors to conversations about struggles and triumphs, revealing the invisible battles waged daily and the quiet victories won through sheer will and care.
AITA if I don’t clarify that I am a type 2 diabetic?
As renowned researcher Dr. Brené Brown explains, “Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.” This situation highlights a breakdown in implicit boundaries concerning personal health information. The OP shared visible medical equipment (the Dexcom) but not the specific context (Type 2 diagnosis), which allowed the other individual to project assumptions onto the situation based on limited data. The shock and subsequent accusation—labeling the OP as an “ahole” for “pretending” to be Type 1—reveal an issue rooted in stigma and perceived entitlement to personal medical details.
The accuser’s reaction stems from a common social misunderstanding that Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are interchangeable, coupled with a societal bias that often views Type 2 diabetes as a self-inflicted condition, contrasting sharply with the perceived helplessness of those with Type 1. The other individual felt emotionally invested based on the assumed shared identity of being a diabetic requiring intensive monitoring. When the OP clarified their management (diet and Mounjaro, not insulin shots), the perceived emotional contract was broken, leading to punitive behavior (avoidance and public shaming).
The OP’s initial action of simply stating they have a CGM was not inherently inappropriate; health information is private. However, given the visible nature of the device and the context of shared conversation about health, providing clarification early might have prevented the subsequent dramatic confrontation. Moving forward, the OP should choose a brief, pre-emptive statement when the topic arises, such as, “This is for my Type 2 diabetes management,” to maintain control over the narrative without oversharing their entire medical history.
AFTER THIS STORY DROPPED, REDDIT WENT INTO MELTDOWN MODE – CHECK OUT WHAT PEOPLE SAID.
The original poster (OP) is facing conflict because they chose not to disclose their Type 2 diabetes diagnosis, leading to another person feeling misled and betrayed when the distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes was revealed. The central conflict lies between the OP’s right to privacy regarding a personal health matter and the other party’s expectation of full, immediate disclosure, especially when perceived shared vulnerability existed.
Should an individual managing a chronic condition like Type 2 diabetes be obligated to proactively specify the type of their diagnosis when using medical technology like a CGM, or is the responsibility on others to refrain from making assumptions about complex medical conditions?
