Just because something is a cause of diabetes doesn't mean it's the only one.

It's a fine line to walk, reassuring those that didn't cause their issue (and particularly 'easier' for type 1 diabetes, where lifestyle choices don't factor in), but then you may also encourage people that can avoid type 2 diabetes to think "I'm golden, sugar doesn't cause type 2 diabetes, let me drink a sugar drink 4 or 5 times a day".

To be clear: I didn’t say ‘cause’ I said ‘gives’ (blame the slogan lol). In fact, I haven’t to this point used the word ‘cause’ at all in this post, that was someone else. Those are two different things. I understand that it’s possibly not the clearest of distinctions at face value, but I stand by it. My understanding of the link between diabetes and sugar is that though sugar itself doesn’t ’cause’ diabetes, it can ‘trigger’ underlying genetic factors if ingested in too high of a quantity in certain individuals. Or, as another commenter stated, can lead to wait gain, which leads to diabetes, and is therefore an indirect cause. I don’t look at diabetes as a ‘cause’ per se, but rather like a key that unlocks the diabetes door. However, in that sense it still ‘gives’ you it in a way, even if not as a direct cause. It’s like when people say “kids give themselves tooth decay” kids don’t directly rot their own teeth, but they indirectly cause it by putting acids and things on their teeth, not brushing etc. and they still say that they gave themselves it. I agree it’s weird semantics, but it’s what we have to work with.