Grey@Triskelion wrote:They want to go to a time in which people don't get any labels or diagnoses, because we need to perceive these disorders as quirks -- I find fault in that. I think it's harsh to say that someone with autism just has some quirks that need helping with. There's a cause for it that I'm sure is at least in part in the genes.
I don't know, it just feels like they say we're whining and should grow out of it, which is a rather pessimistic approach to it on my part but it's this kind of attitude that makes it harder for me to go and look for help. If I'm just going to be told that there's no cause for my struggles and that it's just my personality then what is the point ?
Am I making sense ?
It does make sense. Refusing to label properly a disability or disorder is ableist, period. It's like saying the issue is the label and that making the label disappear will make the the issue disappear.
Grey@Triskelion wrote:I don't think there's a perfect-ticks-all-the-boxes person for any issue be that mental or physical. Medical symptoms don't always all occur either.
Exactly. In order to fit a diagnosis one needs to reach a high enough level of boxes ticked. I do not know of any mental issue where one needs to tick all of the boxes of the diagnosis criteria. Some people often tell me that I dont look autistic. So I explain that, first what they see on TV are autistic people with a lot of comorbid disorders (dysphasia keeps them from speaking, cognitive disabilities impairs them a lot, anxiety disorders make them more jittery...) and second that "autism is a spectrum" means like a sound mix table with tons of different categories. Once enough switches are high enough, one is diagnosed - but there are a lot of different possible switch positions possible and some people have it worse than others. Does not make them "less autistic". They just have it "less visible".
Grey@Triskelion wrote:My issue is with psychologists writing articles and doing interviews in which they state that mental disorders essentially aren't really a thing but only a classification of character quirks that happen to be a little annoying to us.
Any classification is arbitrary BUT it's made so that it's helpful. Clasifying tomatoes as "vegetable" is useful in the kitchen, wrong in botany. Classifying mental disorders puts the line between people who don't need help and people who do - and it says what kind of helps people need. It gives labels so that people with similar needs can find each-other and give peer-support and share ressources.
What we experience is real and really painful. But the line between "I'm ok" and "I need help" depends on the person and how the symptoms are intense and makes them suffer.
One could classify mental disorders with physical signs (brain scans, measures of brain chemistry...) but it's not always a good idea because brain plasticity allows some people to do well in a biological condition that would make another person flip their shirt. For the same reason, pain is measured according to how the person manages and experiences it, not according to the physical signs of the pain.
Some people would flip their shirt if they experienced 1% of the sleep paralysis that I do. But for me it's just a normal morning, I don't even have panic attack or hallucinations anymore, I just see I cannot move, welp back to sleep to reboot my brain I guess. So for me it's not "pathological" because I manage by napping it away. For other people it's pathological because they experience awful panics and hallucinations and it's very distressful.
A mental disorder is the symptoms
and how we suffer from them. You need to take both together. And if somebody suffers from ""nothing"" they still need help, not bullying.