Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory How feminism undermines genuine research

WastedPotential

WastedPotential

El indio, but uglier and manlet
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 18, 2025
Posts
7,646
Online time
21h 33m
Nowadays it's almost ubiquitous seeing people blame men for women's problem or call them misogynist if they dare criticize a woman.
Whilst feminism is seen as a legitimate academic subject, anything related to men's rights just gets labeled misogynist and associated with the alt-right. Barely taken serious by anyone outside of it's sphere.

I want to show you an example today of how we got here. But more specifically the consequence and to put a timeframe on this phenomenon even if it's just one data point.

Take this wiki article

(Now before this article gets edited or deleted i'm going to archive the version as of writing this here)
Self-defeating personality disorder (SDPD), also known as masochistic personality disorder, was a proposed personality disorder. As a descriptor for "Other personality disorder" it was included in the DSM-III in 1980.[2]: 330 [a] It was discussed in an appendix of the DSM-III-R in 1987,[1]: 371  but was never formally admitted into the manual. The distinction was not seen as clinically valuable because of its significant overlap with other personality disorders (borderline, avoidant and dependent).[3] Both the DSM-III and DSM-III-R separated the condition from sexual masochism.[2]: 274 [1]: 287 

It was entirely excluded from the DSM-IV. Since the DSM-5, the diagnoses other specified / unspecified personality disorder have mostly replaced its use.[original research?]

Diagnosis​

Definition proposed in DSM III-R for further review​

Self-defeating personality disorder is:

A) A pervasive pattern of self-defeating behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts. The person may often avoid or undermine pleasurable experiences, be drawn to situations or relationships in which they will suffer, and prevent others from helping them, as indicated by at least five of the following:
  1. chooses people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure, or mistreatment even when better options are clearly available
  2. rejects or renders ineffective the attempts of others to help them
  3. following positive personal events (e.g., new achievement), responds with depression, guilt, or a behavior that produces pain (e.g., an accident)
  4. incites angry or rejecting responses from others and then feels hurt, defeated, or humiliated (e.g., makes fun of spouse in public, provoking an angry retort, then feels devastated)
  5. rejects opportunities for pleasure, or is reluctant to acknowledge enjoying themselves (despite having adequate social skills and the capacity for pleasure)
  6. fails to accomplish tasks crucial to their personal objectives despite having demonstrated ability to do so (e.g., helps fellow students write papers, but is unable to write their own)
  7. is uninterested in or rejects people who consistently treat them well
  8. engages in excessive self-sacrifice that is unsolicited by the intended recipients of the sacrifice
B) The behaviors in A do not occur exclusively in response to, or in anticipation of, being physically, sexually, or psychologically abused.C) The behaviors in A do not occur only when the person is depressed.[1]: 373 

Millon's subtypes​

Theodore Millon has proposed four subtypes of masochist. Any individual masochist may fit into none, one or more of the following subtypes:[4][5]

SubtypeFeaturesTraits
Virtuous masochistIncluding histrionic featuresProudly unselfish, self-denying, and self-sacrificial; self-ascetic; weighty burdens are judged noble, righteous, and saintly; others must recognize loyalty and faithfulness; gratitude and appreciation expected for altruism and forbearance.
Possessive masochistIncluding negativistic featuresBewitches and ensnares by becoming jealous, overprotective, and indispensable; entraps, takes control, conquers, enslaves, and dominates others by being sacrificial to a fault; control by obligatory dependence.
Self-undoing masochistIncluding avoidant featuresIs "wrecked by success"; experiences "victory through defeat"; gratified by personal misfortunes, failures, humiliations, and ordeals; eschews best interests; chooses to be victimized, ruined, disgraced.
Oppressed masochistIncluding depressive featuresExperiences genuine misery, despair, hardship, anguish, torment, illness; grievances used to create guilt in others; resentments vented by exempting from responsibilities and burdening "oppressors".

History​

Historically, masochism has been associated with submissiveness. This disorder became politically controversial when associated with domestic violence, which was considered to be mostly caused by males.[4] However, a number of studies suggest that the disorder is common.[6][7] In spite of its exclusion from DSM-IV in 1994, it continues to enjoy widespread currency amongst clinicians as a construct that explains many facets of human behaviour.[4]

I'm not good at archiving internet media, but I only really want to focus on one paragraph anyway and that is the "History paragraph" What this wiki article explains by the way is an old personality disorder diagnosis which used to be prescribed to women that basically had bad boy syndrome, i.e. foids that are attracted to men that abuse them.

I want you to read the first sentences of the history paragraph "Historically, masochism has been associated with submissiveness. This disorder became politically controversial when associated with domestic violence, which was considered to be mostly caused by males.[4] However, a number of studies suggest that the disorder is common"

By some miracle, this article on wikipedia has remained untouched by feminist propaganda. Imagine how much research would have been done with proper academic funding on the retarded psychology of foids. Instead we have to rely on improvised tinder statistics :feelsclown: . Academia has been corrupted for a long time, but as you can see even since 1994, it was controversial to do research on foids retarded behaviour and not conclude men were the culprit.

@AtrociousCitizen @GeckoBus @Oneitiscel
 
we need to end feminism and abolish women’s rights.
 
Same problem with white people talking about racism against whites, you get called a racist

It is unironically worse to be a white male in 2026 than a black female
 
Would be a valid study if it gave the background of these men, looks and money.

I have a fetish to leash a woman and dominate her, but I'm still an Incel, her wishing to be abused is not the same as her being abused by an Incel.

This is were I'm certain only looks matter, if she does not feel the initial sexual attraction towards you then she will not desire to be dominated by you.
 
Same problem with white people talking about racism against whites, you get called a racist

It is unironically worse to be a white male in 2026 than a black female
 
Same problem with white people talking about racism against whites, you get called a racist

It is unironically worse to be a white male in 2026 than a black female
Only because female > male in today's society, race is irrelevant
 
Nowadays it's almost ubiquitous seeing people blame men for women's problem or call them misogynist if they dare criticize a woman.
Whilst feminism is seen as a legitimate academic subject, anything related to men's rights just gets labeled misogynist and associated with the alt-right. Barely taken serious by anyone outside of it's sphere.

I want to show you an example today of how we got here. But more specifically the consequence and to put a timeframe on this phenomenon even if it's just one data point.

Take this wiki article

(Now before this article gets edited or deleted i'm going to archive the version as of writing this here)


I'm not good at archiving internet media, but I only really want to focus on one paragraph anyway and that is the "History paragraph" What this wiki article explains by the way is an old personality disorder diagnosis which used to be prescribed to women that basically had bad boy syndrome, i.e. foids that are attracted to men that abuse them.

I want you to read the first sentences of the history paragraph "Historically, masochism has been associated with submissiveness. This disorder became politically controversial when associated with domestic violence, which was considered to be mostly caused by males.[4] However, a number of studies suggest that the disorder is common"

By some miracle, this article on wikipedia has remained untouched by feminist propaganda. Imagine how much research would have been done with proper academic funding on the retarded psychology of foids. Instead we have to rely on improvised tinder statistics :feelsclown: . Academia has been corrupted for a long time, but as you can see even since 1994, it was controversial to do research on foids retarded behaviour and not conclude men were the culprit.

@AtrociousCitizen @GeckoBus @Oneitiscel
:bigbrain: :bigbrain: :bigbrain: good high effort thread. I did not know this diagnosis existed but it does not surprise me that they would alter it to remove responsibility from women. The reason they havent edited the article or removed it is probably due to its relative obscurity. If it somehow gained popularity I would be gone quickly. About them blaming men for womens issue, always remember that meme, the golem cries out in pain as it strikes you. They attack first and then blame you and make themselves the victim. There are countless examples where women as a group do this. For example as you pointed out, women seek out men that are violent but then blame men for being violent.

It would be like walking into a minefield because I love getting blown up and then blaming the earth for being "full of mines." More subtle examples is how women are trying take over incel shit with the creation of stuff like the femcel label, or how women are making videos about "female loneliness epidemic" when there is zero possibility a woman could not instantly make friends, in particular male friends. They are lonely by choice, which is to say, they are not lonely, just as femcels are lying about being incapable of getting sex. Male lack of sex and relationships is directly caused by women rejecting men. Notice, they strike first. And then they turn around and say, ouch, I am actually the victim here.

Through this insidious tactic and others like it which work on 99% of men, they have basically taken over any major male hobby or discussion platform. Countless retarded redpillers are making video after video about how "women are finally feeling the consequences of their actions" claiming that women somehow cant find boyfriends because men collectively rejected women, which is laughable. As evidence, they cite women on social media larping about being lonely, not realizing these women are not actually lonley and these videos are female 5d chess, where women steal actual male problems, throw on a sheeps coat and then obliterate genuine male copes from the inside. Men are retarded, I am sorry, 99% of men are retarded and easily manipulated by shit like this. Just think how dumb you have to be to think that a woman can ever be sexless or friendless, when millions of men would cross oceans to settle with one woman.

But that is just one example of how they roll over the blame onto men. Notice with the sexlessness, low birth rate and lonliness epidemic narrative, both sides, retarded redpiller and bluepiller men and women are in total agreement on this: It is men's fault. Men are watching too much porn, men are playing video games. Men have too low sperm counts. Nobody goes, women literally aborted 1/3 of gen-z, maybe they are responsible for low birth rates? just saying? Instead they roll the guilt over to men. And they will keep doing so. Governments will keep doubling down on attacking men for issues they are not responsible for. No more porn, no more hentai, no more anime, no more games. Internet copes? Gotta show your face and ID. They will never hold women accountable.

Always remember, the beatings will continue until morale improves.
 
Only because female > male in today's society, race is irrelevant
Race is irrelevant until you can't get a job because either;

The hiring manager is Indian, and only hiring other Indians (If a white did this they would be called out, but Indians seemingly get a pass on this)

OR

The job is exclusively hiring DEI candidates. (DEI is bullshit)
 
Nowadays it's almost ubiquitous seeing people blame men for women's problem or call them misogynist if they dare criticize a woman.
Whilst feminism is seen as a legitimate academic subject, anything related to men's rights just gets labeled misogynist and associated with the alt-right. Barely taken serious by anyone outside of it's sphere.

I want to show you an example today of how we got here. But more specifically the consequence and to put a timeframe on this phenomenon even if it's just one data point.

Take this wiki article

(Now before this article gets edited or deleted i'm going to archive the version as of writing this here)


I'm not good at archiving internet media, but I only really want to focus on one paragraph anyway and that is the "History paragraph" What this wiki article explains by the way is an old personality disorder diagnosis which used to be prescribed to women that basically had bad boy syndrome, i.e. foids that are attracted to men that abuse them.

I want you to read the first sentences of the history paragraph "Historically, masochism has been associated with submissiveness. This disorder became politically controversial when associated with domestic violence, which was considered to be mostly caused by males.[4] However, a number of studies suggest that the disorder is common"

By some miracle, this article on wikipedia has remained untouched by feminist propaganda. Imagine how much research would have been done with proper academic funding on the retarded psychology of foids. Instead we have to rely on improvised tinder statistics :feelsclown: . Academia has been corrupted for a long time, but as you can see even since 1994, it was controversial to do research on foids retarded behaviour and not conclude men were the culprit.

@AtrociousCitizen @GeckoBus @Oneitiscel
Feminists are losers tbh.
They fought ( actually begged) superior men to grant them rights and for that they used simps to support them.
Indirectly they got Rights from men only.
Ask them to build civilization from scratch like men did
 
Race is irrelevant until you can't get a job because either;

The hiring manager is Indian, and only hiring other Indians (If a white did this they would be called out, but Indians seemingly get a pass on this)

OR

The job is exclusively hiring DEI candidates. (DEI is bullshit)
JBWs have done this for years. A lot of racial claims do have valid foundations.
There's also no DEI. DEI is White Whore Employment Service in disguise.
 
:bigbrain: :bigbrain: :bigbrain: good high effort thread. I did not know this diagnosis existed but it does not surprise me that they would alter it to remove responsibility from women. The reason they havent edited the article or removed it is probably due to its relative obscurity. If it somehow gained popularity I would be gone quickly. About them blaming men for womens issue, always remember that meme, the golem cries out in pain as it strikes you. They attack first and then blame you and make themselves the victim. There are countless examples where women as a group do this. For example as you pointed out, women seek out men that are violent but then blame men for being violent.

It would be like walking into a minefield because I love getting blown up and then blaming the earth for being "full of mines." More subtle examples is how women are trying take over incel shit with the creation of stuff like the femcel label, or how women are making videos about "female loneliness epidemic" when there is zero possibility a woman could not instantly make friends, in particular male friends. They are lonely by choice, which is to say, they are not lonely, just as femcels are lying about being incapable of getting sex. Male lack of sex and relationships is directly caused by women rejecting men. Notice, they strike first. And then they turn around and say, ouch, I am actually the victim here.

Through this insidious tactic and others like it which work on 99% of men, they have basically taken over any major male hobby or discussion platform. Countless retarded redpillers are making video after video about how "women are finally feeling the consequences of their actions" claiming that women somehow cant find boyfriends because men collectively rejected women, which is laughable. As evidence, they cite women on social media larping about being lonely, not realizing these women are not actually lonley and these videos are female 5d chess, where women steal actual male problems, throw on a sheeps coat and then obliterate genuine male copes from the inside. Men are retarded, I am sorry, 99% of men are retarded and easily manipulated by shit like this. Just think how dumb you have to be to think that a woman can ever be sexless or friendless, when millions of men would cross oceans to settle with one woman.

But that is just one example of how they roll over the blame onto men. Notice with the sexlessness, low birth rate and lonliness epidemic narrative, both sides, retarded redpiller and bluepiller men and women are in total agreement on this: It is men's fault. Men are watching too much porn, men are playing video games. Men have too low sperm counts. Nobody goes, women literally aborted 1/3 of gen-z, maybe they are responsible for low birth rates? just saying? Instead they roll the guilt over to men. And they will keep doing so. Governments will keep doubling down on attacking men for issues they are not responsible for. No more porn, no more hentai, no more anime, no more games. Internet copes? Gotta show your face and ID. They will never hold women accountable.

Always remember, the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Thank you brocel, I didn't know either, I just happened to stumble upon it.

I figured as much that it wasn't edited because of it's pretty hidden. Makes me wonder if there are more articles like it out there...

And yes, I've noticed this pattern too. it's literally this meme:
1779715271623


As for the women are finally feeling the consequences. It's just a grift/cope. They know that there are men out there that want to believe foids are suffering too, but most of them aren't and redpill grifters find a way to exploit that feeling.
 
Same problem with white people talking about racism against whites, you get called a racist

It is unironically worse to be a white male in 2026 than a black female
 
Countless retarded redpillers are making video after video about how "women are finally feeling the consequences of their actions" claiming that women somehow cant find boyfriends because men collectively rejected women, which is laughable. As evidence, they cite women on social media larping about being lonely, not realizing these women are not actually lonley and these videos are female 5d chess, where women steal actual male problems, throw on a sheeps coat and then obliterate genuine male copes from the inside. Men are retarded, I am sorry, 99% of men are retarded and easily manipulated by shit like this. Just think how dumb you have to be to think that a woman can ever be sexless or friendless, when millions of men would cross oceans to settle with one woman.
As for the women are finally feeling the consequences. It's just a grift/cope. They know that there are men out there that want to believe foids are suffering too, but most of them aren't and redpill grifters find a way to exploit that feeling.
Men, especially Western Men, are giga obsessed with “giving foids a taste of their own medicine,” not so much with addressing their own plights. I’ll give femtards some credit for saying it out loud that men would rather scream at foids for not paying attention to their issues than address the issues themselves (admittedly, a lot of the issues are caused by foids themselves). Obviously, holding foids accountable at the very least would be the prerequisite to addressing male issues.

But no, these niggers just want to flip-flop between calling foids whores and sweet angels (when ‘heckled’ by ethnic men). I’m surprised (in a gravely disappointing manner) that not only are these redpill channels alive and kicking, but also they are more popular than before. I think the core of Red Pill is selling men the illusion of a societal arrangement, where foids need men at a personal level to survive, that simply doesn’t exist, and never did. That’s fucking male narcissism.
 
I would like to give my own input on this post.

I do not intend to dispute any of the claims you or the article make. What I want to do is try to shift the discourse on something a bit more fundamental and structural, since the DSM-III is brought up.

To me, while your conclusion seems correct, the problem isn't strictly related to feminist interference in academia, but the structure that allows for such politicization and polarization INSIDE of academia.

The DSM in particular represents the most egregious example of a political entity masquerading as a benefactor of sorts, as a "morally good" entity whose interests are solely the betterment of mankind and healing purportedly mentally ill people.

The article, in my opinion, does a very good job of illustrating, albeit implicitly so, the main issues with the DSM:

0) Psychiatry is not a science:

First and foremost, psychiatry is not a science. Its methods are clearly un-scientific, with issues of replicability, candidate selection biases, other biases of the researchers, predictive ability, and p-hacking, extremely low study population, false generalization and more. These all stem from a superficial application of statistics, essentially not utilized as a mathematical tool for inquiry of the continuum, but as a "get out of jail free" card to manipulate any set of data to spit out an answer the researcher wants. And when a researcher gets an unexpected answer, the results are generally addressed in some wishy-washy way as "we need more research on this topic" or "this result is statistically irrelevant".

With this said, research studies are practically worthless. They are merely a tool for companies and research bodies to push whatever propaganda they want to push. One clear, classic example is the SSRI propaganda as a cure for many mental illnesses, specifically those that encompass depressive symptoms. Joanna Moncrieff a few years ago conducted an umbrella-review (meta-review of a number of meta-reviews spanning thousands of clinical cases) and found no substantial correlation between SSRI intake and such psycho-pathologies improving in severity. Thus, the serotonin hypothesis as a cause of depression has been seemingly contested with ample evidence.

A link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

(iirc someone here made a post about it but I can't seem to find it anywhere, if you find it please post the link down below and I'll include it here)

This is only one case, but there are more studies being conducted on medications such as lithium for personality disorders, and others. Essentially my point is that as a result of psychiatry not being based on science, and desperately needing to justify its existence, it turned to assume some bastardized traits of neurobiology, by formulating baseless hypotheses and distributing answers rooted in some way in that actually scientific discipline, but, as could've been expected, it has done more harm than good in the long run. This also gives psychiatry the ability to conceal itself and retreat into a sort of confusing mist, where it justifies itself as "neuro-psychiatry" reaping all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. It is pseudo-science, a cult.

1) Voting mechanism for admission of mental illnesses into the Manual:

With this premise over, it remains a fact that the DSM catalogues mental illnesses not applying the scientific method, like you see in medicine, but by voting. This is a well established fact, stated in the DSM itself. Moreover, the DSM is at its core a descriptive manual: it is a description of probable symptoms, it does not establish causes (I will get to why later on in the comment, at point 3).

For instance, in 1973 homosexuality/homophilia was voted out of the DSM, declassified from mental illness to sexual orientation. I do not want to occupy any more of anyone's time debating whether or not it is a mental illness. The point is, if it was classified as a mental illness and after 1973 it wasn't anymore, then what is it really?
Assuming there are objective criteria for categorizing psycho-pathologies in the DSM, then homosexuality must've fulfilled those criteria. On the other hand, if it was removed, then it means that it either wasn't actually fulfilling any criteria, or that there are no such criteria for categorization. Because the DSM (more properly, the American Psychiatry Association, APA, which redacts the DSM) is not scientific, as objected to earlier, it remains for me to assert that the various illnesses have no objective criteria that allow categorization in a scientific manner, and in union with the fact that the primary mechanism is voting based, the DSM is for all intents and purposes heavily politicized.

Do you know what happened in the early 70s? Stonewall Inn riots. Pride month began to be celebrated.

There is no need to dub me a conspiracy theorist: the foundations of the APA allow for heavy political interference.


This is always justified with the magical formula "scientific consensus", which is another way of saying what I have already previously stated: there is nothing scientific about psychiatry, there is only an association of greedy (((doctors))).


2) ICD ties and the psychiatry market


The International Classification of Diseases encompasses not only psycho-pathologies, but all other types of illnesses too. It is a convenient handbook made by the World Health Organization, and it serves as a way to catalogue codes that doctors use to prescribe medicine and to refer to insurance companies.

The DSM-V has been written in a way that conveniently ties into the ICD-10: for every illness, an ICD code is given.

"What's so bad with this?" one might ask.

The implication of providing ICD codes directly into the DSM is that it only reinforces the perception of mental illnesses as entities that require medication to be cured (explored more in depth in point 4). You come in, explain what you have to explain, the doctor checks his 6-point checklist (oh my god the Differential Diagnoses addendum, I HAVE to make a post about it), and the doctor assigns a code with a receipt for insurance purposes.

Psychiatry has become a market. Governments push for more incentives for psychotherapy, medication and whatnot, diagnoses explode due to the incentives and special laws drafted, a "mental health emergency" is declared, more funding for bogus research that rivals papers financed by tobacco companies (jfl), more money spent in therapy sessions, medications, more power to psycho-pharmaceutical lobbies, more laws drafted, more shit inserted in the DSM. It is effectively a bubble, and it only grows bigger.

This is not a conspiracy theory, eminent psychiatrists such as Allen Frances, Gary Greenberg, Joanna Moncrieff herself have come out and denounced this book and its operations.
Allen Frances in particular presided over the drafting period and voting period of the DSM-IV. He knows this shit from the inside. He wrote a masterpiece titled "Saving Normal" which I spur anyone interested in the topic to read. Since you're here, might as well read Greenberg's "The book of Woe", a book on the DSM.



3) Domain Shift

I'll be very brief here.

In order to survive, psychiatry categorically has to function as if the external world does not have any influence on the individual.
Psychiatry surely does not go so far as deny the existence of external factors in the rise of psychopathologies. However, grimly so, it focuses on pathologizing and managing the individual's response to outside stimuli as well as internal ones.
Psychiatry presumes that the individual is able to resolve his problems through the use of words alone (aka Cope Beta Therapy). "I am adonis, I am adonis, I am adonis". Psychiatry obviously, OBVIOUSLY does not have any power to modify the external factors that contribute to an individual's formative years and present condition. But in order for the market to survive, it has, IT HAS to assume as ineludible truth that the individual's domain of agency, that being the individual itself, suffices for permanent change. However, if psychiatry fails at its claimed purpose, then it is the individual's fault, for he "did not actually want to heal".

Psychiatry treats the individual as deterministic, whilst shielding itself from any critique through the free will of the individual.

Quite smart, this psychiatry scheme. And normies swallow it up naturally.

If psychiatry admitted the truth, then the whole market would implode, as there would be no need for it anymore, but people would naturally feel the need for a revolution, a change of the system. Instead, the system uses psychiatry to keep the individuals' heads down, feeding them illusions of free will and an illusion that the psychiatrists, therapists and whoever else is on the side of the individuals, whilst they are not, they are on the side of the cultish scheme they have been propagating for what? 70 years now?

This is obviously against the VERY EMPIRICALLY FACTUALLY OBSERVABLE TRUTH that external factors DO play a role in psycho-pathologies. There doesn't even need to be a total deterministic axiomatic foundation to see this. You can believe in free will, and you'll still have external factors influencing you.


4) Hyper-pathologization of normal human behavior:

I cannot possibly stress this enough.
The DSM is, at its core, pathologizing every aspect of human life.
"Sad because your crush rejected you? You must be depressed"
"You have mood swings because you're a teenager having irregular hormone balance? We'll put you on lithium and literally poison you"
"Your parents never loved you and now you cannot trust others and suffer from insomnia? 2 years of CBT (definitely not cock and ball torture btw) and we'll give you potent sleeping aids."


Do you see the pattern? But of course it could only be a consequence of the previous points.
If you ever took a look at the "mental illnesses" the DSM comprises, you'd begin laughing your ass off, between "Other Specified" and "Other Unspecified" illnesses, which in jargon mean "we need to sell this goy his goyfood, let's categorize him as mentally ill with this neat category we created without any sort of scientific proof or evidence (much like all the other categories) to make a profit off of his ass".

I'll conclude this hastily drafted post (perhaps I'll make a more comprehensive and extensive one in the future, but rn I absolutely had to get my thoughts out into the world and hyperfocused on this instead of stoodymaxxing) with one very funny thing.

They pathologized Grief.

I am not kidding you.

If you grieve for longer than an arbitrarily set amount of time (iirc 12 or 18 months) you are mentally ill and need to get therapy and meds.

(this is probably incomplete I am sorry so uhm well I agree with you and wanted to expand on some more reasons why I think that article is based but implicitly so urm if you ask yourself whether I think that the studies supporting blackpill claims are invalid I say yes urm well this is awkward erm it's just my opinion even though it's kind of an informed opinion but not really but oh well, social scientists feel free to use your cultish knowledge to debate me I won't budge yes you heard me right you are part of a cult your textbooks are written in cultish ways the dsm is a cult manual and your professors are weird liberal faggots haha take this fuckers hahahahahahahahahahahahah)

@GeckoBus @AtrociousCitizen @Izayacel
 
They will do anything in their power to maintain the current paradigm, even if that entails bringing progress to a halt; that is the nature of a degenerating research program, which is exactly what feminist theory is. It absorbs all counter-evidence presented against it, and deliberately silences any viewpoint that contradicts its ideas. The medical establishment was completely compromised by political correctness and ridiculous philosophical ideas decades ago.
 
I would like to give my own input on this post.

I do not intend to dispute any of the claims you or the article make. What I want to do is try to shift the discourse on something a bit more fundamental and structural, since the DSM-III is brought up.

To me, while your conclusion seems correct, the problem isn't strictly related to feminist interference in academia, but the structure that allows for such politicization and polarization INSIDE of academia.

The DSM in particular represents the most egregious example of a political entity masquerading as a benefactor of sorts, as a "morally good" entity whose interests are solely the betterment of mankind and healing purportedly mentally ill people.

The article, in my opinion, does a very good job of illustrating, albeit implicitly so, the main issues with the DSM:

0) Psychiatry is not a science:

First and foremost, psychiatry is not a science. Its methods are clearly un-scientific, with issues of replicability, candidate selection biases, other biases of the researchers, predictive ability, and p-hacking, extremely low study population, false generalization and more. These all stem from a superficial application of statistics, essentially not utilized as a mathematical tool for inquiry of the continuum, but as a "get out of jail free" card to manipulate any set of data to spit out an answer the researcher wants. And when a researcher gets an unexpected answer, the results are generally addressed in some wishy-washy way as "we need more research on this topic" or "this result is statistically irrelevant".

With this said, research studies are practically worthless. They are merely a tool for companies and research bodies to push whatever propaganda they want to push. One clear, classic example is the SSRI propaganda as a cure for many mental illnesses, specifically those that encompass depressive symptoms. Joanna Moncrieff a few years ago conducted an umbrella-review (meta-review of a number of meta-reviews spanning thousands of clinical cases) and found no substantial correlation between SSRI intake and such psycho-pathologies improving in severity. Thus, the serotonin hypothesis as a cause of depression has been seemingly contested with ample evidence.

A link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

(iirc someone here made a post about it but I can't seem to find it anywhere, if you find it please post the link down below and I'll include it here)

This is only one case, but there are more studies being conducted on medications such as lithium for personality disorders, and others. Essentially my point is that as a result of psychiatry not being based on science, and desperately needing to justify its existence, it turned to assume some bastardized traits of neurobiology, by formulating baseless hypotheses and distributing answers rooted in some way in that actually scientific discipline, but, as could've been expected, it has done more harm than good in the long run. This also gives psychiatry the ability to conceal itself and retreat into a sort of confusing mist, where it justifies itself as "neuro-psychiatry" reaping all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. It is pseudo-science, a cult.

1) Voting mechanism for admission of mental illnesses into the Manual:

With this premise over, it remains a fact that the DSM catalogues mental illnesses not applying the scientific method, like you see in medicine, but by voting. This is a well established fact, stated in the DSM itself. Moreover, the DSM is at its core a descriptive manual: it is a description of probable symptoms, it does not establish causes (I will get to why later on in the comment, at point 3).

For instance, in 1973 homosexuality/homophilia was voted out of the DSM, declassified from mental illness to sexual orientation. I do not want to occupy any more of anyone's time debating whether or not it is a mental illness. The point is, if it was classified as a mental illness and after 1973 it wasn't anymore, then what is it really?
Assuming there are objective criteria for categorizing psycho-pathologies in the DSM, then homosexuality must've fulfilled those criteria. On the other hand, if it was removed, then it means that it either wasn't actually fulfilling any criteria, or that there are no such criteria for categorization. Because the DSM (more properly, the American Psychiatry Association, APA, which redacts the DSM) is not scientific, as objected to earlier, it remains for me to assert that the various illnesses have no objective criteria that allow categorization in a scientific manner, and in union with the fact that the primary mechanism is voting based, the DSM is for all intents and purposes heavily politicized.

Do you know what happened in the early 70s? Stonewall Inn riots. Pride month began to be celebrated.

There is no need to dub me a conspiracy theorist: the foundations of the APA allow for heavy political interference.


This is always justified with the magical formula "scientific consensus", which is another way of saying what I have already previously stated: there is nothing scientific about psychiatry, there is only an association of greedy (((doctors))).


2) ICD ties and the psychiatry market


The International Classification of Diseases encompasses not only psycho-pathologies, but all other types of illnesses too. It is a convenient handbook made by the World Health Organization, and it serves as a way to catalogue codes that doctors use to prescribe medicine and to refer to insurance companies.

The DSM-V has been written in a way that conveniently ties into the ICD-10: for every illness, an ICD code is given.

"What's so bad with this?" one might ask.

The implication of providing ICD codes directly into the DSM is that it only reinforces the perception of mental illnesses as entities that require medication to be cured (explored more in depth in point 4). You come in, explain what you have to explain, the doctor checks his 6-point checklist (oh my god the Differential Diagnoses addendum, I HAVE to make a post about it), and the doctor assigns a code with a receipt for insurance purposes.

Psychiatry has become a market. Governments push for more incentives for psychotherapy, medication and whatnot, diagnoses explode due to the incentives and special laws drafted, a "mental health emergency" is declared, more funding for bogus research that rivals papers financed by tobacco companies (jfl), more money spent in therapy sessions, medications, more power to psycho-pharmaceutical lobbies, more laws drafted, more shit inserted in the DSM. It is effectively a bubble, and it only grows bigger.

This is not a conspiracy theory, eminent psychiatrists such as Allen Frances, Gary Greenberg, Joanna Moncrieff herself have come out and denounced this book and its operations.
Allen Frances in particular presided over the drafting period and voting period of the DSM-IV. He knows this shit from the inside. He wrote a masterpiece titled "Saving Normal" which I spur anyone interested in the topic to read. Since you're here, might as well read Greenberg's "The book of Woe", a book on the DSM.



3) Domain Shift

I'll be very brief here.

In order to survive, psychiatry categorically has to function as if the external world does not have any influence on the individual.
Psychiatry surely does not go so far as deny the existence of external factors in the rise of psychopathologies. However, grimly so, it focuses on pathologizing and managing the individual's response to outside stimuli as well as internal ones.
Psychiatry presumes that the individual is able to resolve his problems through the use of words alone (aka Cope Beta Therapy). "I am adonis, I am adonis, I am adonis". Psychiatry obviously, OBVIOUSLY does not have any power to modify the external factors that contribute to an individual's formative years and present condition. But in order for the market to survive, it has, IT HAS to assume as ineludible truth that the individual's domain of agency, that being the individual itself, suffices for permanent change. However, if psychiatry fails at its claimed purpose, then it is the individual's fault, for he "did not actually want to heal".

Psychiatry treats the individual as deterministic, whilst shielding itself from any critique through the free will of the individual.

Quite smart, this psychiatry scheme. And normies swallow it up naturally.

If psychiatry admitted the truth, then the whole market would implode, as there would be no need for it anymore, but people would naturally feel the need for a revolution, a change of the system. Instead, the system uses psychiatry to keep the individuals' heads down, feeding them illusions of free will and an illusion that the psychiatrists, therapists and whoever else is on the side of the individuals, whilst they are not, they are on the side of the cultish scheme they have been propagating for what? 70 years now?

This is obviously against the VERY EMPIRICALLY FACTUALLY OBSERVABLE TRUTH that external factors DO play a role in psycho-pathologies. There doesn't even need to be a total deterministic axiomatic foundation to see this. You can believe in free will, and you'll still have external factors influencing you.


4) Hyper-pathologization of normal human behavior:

I cannot possibly stress this enough.
The DSM is, at its core, pathologizing every aspect of human life.
"Sad because your crush rejected you? You must be depressed"
"You have mood swings because you're a teenager having irregular hormone balance? We'll put you on lithium and literally poison you"
"Your parents never loved you and now you cannot trust others and suffer from insomnia? 2 years of CBT (definitely not cock and ball torture btw) and we'll give you potent sleeping aids."


Do you see the pattern? But of course it could only be a consequence of the previous points.
If you ever took a look at the "mental illnesses" the DSM comprises, you'd begin laughing your ass off, between "Other Specified" and "Other Unspecified" illnesses, which in jargon mean "we need to sell this goy his goyfood, let's categorize him as mentally ill with this neat category we created without any sort of scientific proof or evidence (much like all the other categories) to make a profit off of his ass".

I'll conclude this hastily drafted post (perhaps I'll make a more comprehensive and extensive one in the future, but rn I absolutely had to get my thoughts out into the world and hyperfocused on this instead of stoodymaxxing) with one very funny thing.

They pathologized Grief.

I am not kidding you.

If you grieve for longer than an arbitrarily set amount of time (iirc 12 or 18 months) you are mentally ill and need to get therapy and meds.

(this is probably incomplete I am sorry so uhm well I agree with you and wanted to expand on some more reasons why I think that article is based but implicitly so urm if you ask yourself whether I think that the studies supporting blackpill claims are invalid I say yes urm well this is awkward erm it's just my opinion even though it's kind of an informed opinion but not really but oh well, social scientists feel free to use your cultish knowledge to debate me I won't budge yes you heard me right you are part of a cult your textbooks are written in cultish ways the dsm is a cult manual and your professors are weird liberal faggots haha take this fuckers hahahahahahahahahahahahah)

@GeckoBus @AtrociousCitizen @Izayacel
Very nice breakdown :feelsokman:

By focusing entirely on pathologizing the individual, the system completely shifts the blame away from a broken, lookist, individualistic, nihilistic, and hypergamous society. If a young guy is depressed because he's systematically rejected and isolated by the modern dating market, psychiatry tells him his brain chemistry is defective and feeds him SSRIs to chemically castrate him. It forces the individual to cope pointlessly through ridiculous therapy methods rather than admitting that his environment is objectively shit.

One of the most fundamental issues that a good portion of psychiatry faces is in terms of its epistemology, as various conceptual entities it posits exist as independent structures within the mind, such as personality disorders, are wholly fictional; they are constructs conjured using circular definitions to pathologize individuals unnecessarily. It could, in certain cases, function as a convenient label to describe patterns of behavior — but modern psychology does not simply treat it as a label, but as an inner object that exists in a meaningful way, hence it claims to have a sort of deep understanding of the intricate nature of the mind, which is preposterous. There are many areas in psychology that are respectable, such as cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and biopsychology — all of which offer clear, measurable correlations that can teach us factual information about how mental processes operate.

This is separate from the nonsensical propositions and pathological notions brought by some of the dubious psychological fields, which, as you correctly noted, focus intensely on the individual and their shortcomings instead of correctly assessing the effect of the public space on certain patterns of behavior. In the end, psychology is primarily meant to keep the slaves within a society subservient and compliant, hence it is not a surprise it functions as a tool to guide people toward accepting their miserable circumstances and not revolting against the status quo; it deems everyone who rejects it as an anomaly that must be corrected, even if said anomaly emerged reasonably due to abhorrent conditions.
 
Very nice breakdown :feelsokman:

By focusing entirely on pathologizing the individual, the system completely shifts the blame away from a broken, lookist, individualistic, nihilistic, and hypergamous society. If a young guy is depressed because he's systematically rejected and isolated by the modern dating market, psychiatry tells him his brain chemistry is defective and feeds him SSRIs to chemically castrate him. It forces the individual to cope pointlessly through ridiculous therapy methods rather than admitting that his environment is objectively shit.

One of the most fundamental issues that a good portion of psychiatry faces is in terms of its epistemology, as various conceptual entities it posits exist as independent structures within the mind, such as personality disorders, are wholly fictional; they are constructs conjured using circular definitions to pathologize individuals unnecessarily. It could, in certain cases, function as a convenient label to describe patterns of behavior — but modern psychology does not simply treat it as a label, but as an inner object that exists in a meaningful way, hence it claims to have a sort of deep understanding of the intricate nature of the mind, which is preposterous. There are many areas in psychology that are respectable, such as cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and biopsychology — all of which offer clear, measurable correlations that can teach us factual information about how mental processes operate.

This is separate from the nonsensical propositions and pathological notions brought by some of the dubious psychological fields, which, as you correctly noted, focus intensely on the individual and their shortcomings instead of correctly assessing the effect of the public space on certain patterns of behavior. In the end, psychology is primarily meant to keep the slaves within a society subservient and compliant, hence it is not a surprise it functions as a tool to guide people toward accepting their miserable circumstances and not revolting against the status quo; it deems everyone who rejects it as an anomaly that must be corrected, even if said anomaly emerged reasonably due to abhorrent conditions.
One example from the DSM-V-TR is the chapter on Gender Dysphoria:

Gender Dysphoria
Diagnostic Criteria
Gender Dysphoria in Children
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):
1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing.
3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.
4. A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.
5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.
6. In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities.
7. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.
8. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.

B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning.
Specify if:
With a disorder/difference of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as E25.0 congenital adrenal hyperplasia or
androgen insensitivity syndrome).
Coding note: Code the disorder/difference of sex development as well as gender dysphoria.

Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Specify if:
With a disorder/difference of sex development (e.g., a congenital
adrenogenital disorder such as E25.0 congenital adrenal hyperplasia or E34.50
androgen insensitivity syndrome).

Coding note: Code the disorder/difference of sex development as well as gender dysphoria.
Specify if:
Posttransition: The individual has transitioned to full-time living in the experienced gender (with or without legalization of gender change) and has undergone (or is preparing to have) at least one gender-affirming medical procedure or treatment regimen—namely, regular gender-affirming hormone treatment or gender reassignment surgery confirming the experienced gender (e.g., breast augmentation surgery and/or vulvovaginoplasty in an individual assigned male at birth; transmasculine chest surgery and/or phalloplasty or metoidioplasty in an individual assigned female at birth).
Specifiers
The specifier “with a disorder/difference of sex development” should be used in the context of individuals who have a specific and codable disorder/difference of sex development documented in their medical record.
The “posttransition” specifier may be used in the context of continuing treatment procedures that serve to support the new gender assignment.

Diagnostic Features
Individuals with gender dysphoria have a marked incongruence between the gender to which they have been assigned (usually based on phenotypic sex at birth, referred to as birth-assigned gender) and their experienced/expressed gender. This discrepancy is the core component of the diagnosis. There must also be evidence of distress about this incongruence. Experienced gender may include alternative gender identities beyond binary stereotypes. Consequently, distress may involve not only the experience that the individual is a male or female gender other than the one assigned at birth but also an experience that the individual is an intermediate or alternative
gender that differs from the individual’s birth-assigned gender. Gender dysphoria manifests itself differently in different age groups. The following examples may be less prominent in children raised in surroundings with fewer gender stereotypes.

Prepubertal individuals assigned female at birth with gender dysphoria may express a marked, persistent feeling or conviction that they are a boy, express aversion to the idea of being a girl, or assert they will grow up to be a man. They often prefer boys’ clothing and hairstyles, may be perceived by strangers as boys, and may ask to be called by a boy’s name. Sometimes they display intense negative reactions to parental attempts to have them wear dresses or other feminine attire. Some may refuse to attend school or social events where such clothes are required. These children may demonstrate marked gender nonconformity in role-playing, dreams, gender-typed play and toy preferences, styles, mannerisms, fantasies, and peer preferences. Contact sports, rough-and-tumble play, traditional boyhood games, and boys as playmates are most often preferred. They show little interest in stereotypically feminine toys (e.g., dolls) or activities (e.g., feminine dress-up or role-play). Occasionally, they refuse to urinate in a sitting position. Some may express a desire to have a penis or claim to have a penis or that they will grow one when older. They may also state that they do not want to develop breasts or menstruate.

Prepubertal individuals assigned male at birth with gender dysphoria may express a marked, persistent feeling or conviction that they are a girl or assert that they will grow up to be a woman. They may express aversion to the idea of being a boy. They often prefer dressing in girls’ or women’s clothes or may improvise clothing from available materials (e.g., using towels, aprons, and scarves for long hair or skirts). These children may demonstrate marked gender nonconformity in gender-typed play and toy preferences, styles, mannerisms, and peer preferences. They may role-play female figures (e.g., playing “mother”) and may be intensely interested in female fantasy figures. Traditional feminine activities, stereotypical games, and pastimes (e.g., “playing house”; drawing feminine pictures; watching television or videos of favorite female characters) may be preferred. Stereotypical female-type dolls (e.g., Barbie) may be favorite toys, and girls are their preferred playmates. They avoid rough-and-tumble play and have little interest in stereotypically masculine toys (e.g., cars, trucks). They may state that they find their penis or testes disgusting, that they wish them removed, or that they have, or wish to have, a vagina.
Increasingly, parents are presenting to specialized clinics after their child with gender dysphoria has already socially transitioned.
As the onset of puberty for individuals assigned female at birth is somewhere between ages 9 and 13, and between 11 and 14 for individuals assigned male at birth, their symptoms and concerns may arise in a developmental phase somewhere between childhood and adolescence. As secondary sex characteristics of younger adolescents are not yet fully developed, these individuals may not state dislike of them, but they may be markedly distressed by imminent physical changes.

In adolescents and adults with gender dysphoria, the discrepancy between experienced gender and physical sex characteristics is often, but not always, accompanied by a desire to be rid of primary and/or secondary sex characteristics and/or a strong desire to acquire some primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of another gender. To varying degrees, older adolescents and adults with gender dysphoria may adopt the behavior, clothing, and mannerisms of their experienced gender. They feel uncomfortable being regarded by others, or functioning in society, as members of their assigned gender. Some adults and adolescents may have a strong desire to be of a different gender and treated as such, and they may have an inner certainty to feel and respond as their experienced gender without seeking medical treatment to alter body characteristics. They may find other ways to resolve the incongruence between experienced/expressed and assigned gender by partially living in the desired role or by adopting a gender role neither conventionally male nor conventionally female.

Associated Features
When visible signs of puberty develop, individuals assigned male at birth may shave their facial, body, and leg hair at the first signs of growth. They sometimes bind their genitals to make erections less visible. Individuals assigned female at birth may bind their breasts, walk with a stoop, or use loose sweaters to make breasts less visible. Increasingly, adolescents request, or may obtain without medical prescription and supervision, drugs that suppress production of gonadal steroids (e.g., gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] agonists) or that block gonadal hormone actions (e.g., spironolactone). Clinically referred adolescents often want hormone treatment and many also wish for gender-affirming surgery. Adolescents living in an accepting environment may openly express the desire to be and be treated as their experienced gender and dress partly or completely as their experienced gender, have a hairstyle typical of their experienced gender, preferentially seek friendships with peers of another gender, and/or adopt a new first name consistent with their experienced gender. Older adolescents, when sexually active, often do not show or allow partners to touch their sexual organs. For adults with an aversion toward their genitals, sexual activity is constrained by the preference that their genitals not be seen or touched by their partners. Not infrequently, adults may seek hormone treatment (sometimes without medical prescription and supervision) and gender-affirming
surgery. Others are satisfied with either hormone treatment or surgery alone, or without any gender-affirming medical treatment.
In children, adolescents, and adults with gender dysphoria, an overrepresentation of autism spectrum traits has been observed. Also, individuals with autism spectrum disorder are more likely to exhibit gender diversity.
Adolescents and adults with gender dysphoria before gender-affirming treatment and legal gender change are at increased risk for mental health problems including suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicides. After gender reassignment, adjustment may vary, and suicide risk and mental health problems may persist.
In prepubertal children, increasing age is associated with having more behavioral or emotional problems; this is related to the increasing nonacceptance of gender-nonconforming behavior by others. Children and adolescents who feel supported and accepted in their gender
nonconformity may show less or even no psychological problems.

Prevalence
There are no large-scale population studies of gender dysphoria. Based on gender-affirming treatment–seeking populations, the prevalence for gender dysphoria diagnosis across populations has been assessed to be less than 1/1,000 (i.e., < 0.1%) for both individuals assigned male at birth and individuals assigned female at birth. Because many adults with gender dysphoria do not seek care at specialty treatment programs, prevalence rates are likely underestimates. Prevalence estimates based on surveys of self-reporting general population samples in the United States and Europe suggest higher numbers, although varied methods of assessment make comparisons
difficult across studies. Self-identification as transgender ranges from 0.5% to 0.6%; experiencing oneself as having an incongruent gender identity ranges from 0.6% to 1.1%; feeling that one is a person of a different sex ranges from 2.1% to 2.6%; and the desire to undergo
medical treatment ranges from 0.2% to 0.6%.

Development and Course
Because expression of gender dysphoria varies with age, there are separate criteria sets for children versus those for adolescents and adults. Criteria for children are defined in a more concrete, behavioral manner than those for adolescents and adults. Young children are less likely than older children, adolescents, and adults to express extreme and persistent anatomic Gender dysphoria without a disorder of sex development.

In adolescents and adults, incongruence between experienced gender and assigned gender is a central feature of the diagnosis. Factors related to distress and impairment also vary with age. A very young child may show signs of distress (e.g., intense crying) only when parents tell the child that he or she is “really” not a member of another gender but only “desires” to be. Distress may not be manifest in social environments supportive of the child’s gender nonconformity and may emerge only if there is parental/social interference with the child’s gender variance. In adolescents and adults, distress may manifest because of strong incongruence between experienced gender and birth-assigned gender. Such distress may, however, be mitigated by supportive environments and knowledge that biomedical treatments exist to reduce incongruence. Impairment (e.g., school refusal, development of depression, anxiety, peer and behavioral problems, and substance abuse) may be a correlate of gender dysphoria.
For clinic-referred children studied in Canada and the Netherlands, onset of gender-nonconforming behaviors is usually between ages 2
and 4 years. This corresponds to the developmental time period in which most children begin expressing gendered behaviors and interests. For some preschool-age children, both marked, persistent gender-atypical behaviors and the expressed desire to be another gender may be present, or labeling themselves as a member of another gender may occur. In other cases, the gender expression appears later, usually at entry into elementary school. Children may sometimes express discomfort with their sexual anatomy or will state the desire to have a sexual anatomy corresponding to their experienced gender (“anatomic dysphoria”). Expressions of anatomic dysphoria become more common as children with gender dysphoria approach and anticipate puberty.
No general population studies exist of adolescent or adult outcomes of childhood gender variance. Some prepubescent children expressing a desire to be another gender will not seek gender-affirming somatic treatments when they reach puberty. They frequently report nonheterosexual orientations and frequently marked gender-nonconforming behavior, although not necessarily a transgender identity in adolescence/young adulthood. Some children with gender dysphoria in childhood that remits in adolescence may experience a recurrence in adulthood.
In individuals assigned male at birth, studies from North America and the Netherlands found persistence ranged from 2% to 39%. In individuals assigned female at birth, persistence ranged from 12% to 50%. Persistence of gender dysphoria is modestly correlated with dimensional measures of severity ascertained at the time of a childhood baseline assessment. Early social transition may also be a factor in persistence of gender dysphoria in adolescence. Studies have shown a high incidence of sexual attraction to those of the individual’s birth-
assigned gender, regardless of the trajectory of the prepubescent child’s gender dysphoria. For individuals whose gender dysphoria continues into adolescence and beyond, most self-identify as heterosexual. In those who no longer have gender dysphoria by the time of adolescence, a majority self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Two broad trajectories have been described for development of gender dysphoria in individuals who identify as either male or female.
Gender dysphoria in association with a disorder of sex development.
Temperamental.

As opposed to gender-nonconforming children, individuals with prepubertal-onset gender dysphoria have symptoms that meet diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood. The dysphoria can continue into adolescence and adulthood; alternatively, some individuals go
through a period in which the gender dysphoria either desists or is denied. At such times, these individuals may self-identify as being gay or lesbian. Some may identify as heterosexual and cisgender. However, it is possible that some of these individuals may experience a recurrence of gender dysphoria later in life.
Regardless of whether the individual’s gender dysphoria persists or desists at a later date, either the onset of puberty or the realization that puberty will begin with development of secondary sex characteristics can prompt distressing feelings of gender incongruence that can
exacerbate the individual’s gender dysphoria. The early/prepubertal-onset group often present for clinical, gender-affirming care during
childhood, during adolescence, or in young adulthood. This may reflect a more intense gender dysphoria compared with individuals with late/postpubertal-onset gender dysphoria, whose distress may be more variable and less intense.

Late-onset or pubertal/postpubertal-onset gender dysphoria occurs around puberty or even much later in life. Some of these individuals report having had a desire to be of another gender in childhood that was not expressed verbally to others or had gender-nonconforming behavior that did not meet full criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood. Others have no recollection of any signs of childhood gender dysphoria. Parents of individuals with gender dysphoria of pubertal/postpubertal-onset often report surprise, as they saw no signs of gender dysphoria during childhood.
Individuals with DSDs who require early medical intervention or decisions about gender assignment come to clinical attention at an early age. Depending on the condition, they may have been gonadectomized (often because of risk of future malignancy) before puberty so that administration of exogenous hormones is part of routine care to induce puberty. Infertility is common whether due to the condition itself or to gonadectomy, and genital surgery may have been done in infancy or childhood with the intent of affirming the assigned gender to both the affected individual and caregivers.
Affected individuals may exhibit gender-nonconforming behavior starting in early childhood in a manner that is predictable depending on the specific DSD syndrome and the gender assignment, and thresholds for supporting social and medical gender transition in minors have
traditionally been much lower for those with compared to those without DSDs. As individuals with some DSD syndromes become aware of their condition and medical history, many experience uncertainty about their gender, as opposed to developing a firm conviction that they
are of another gender. The proportion who develop gender dysphoria and progress to gender transition varies markedly depending on the particular syndrome and gender assignment.

Risk and Prognostic Factors
Gender-variant behavior among individuals with prepubertal-onset gender
Environmental.
Genetic and physiological.

Dysphoria can develop in early preschool age. Studies suggest that a greater intensity of gender nonconformity and an older age at presentation make persistence of gender dysphoria into adolescence and adulthood more likely. A predisposing factor under consideration, especially in individuals with postpubertal-onset gender dysphoria (adolescence, adulthood), includes history of transvestism that may develop into autogynephilia (i.e., sexual arousal associated with the thought or image of oneself as a woman).
Individuals assigned male at birth with gender dysphoria without a DSD (in both childhood and adolescence) more commonly have older brothers when compared with cisgender males.
For individuals with gender dysphoria without a DSD, some genetic contribution is suggested by evidence for (weak) familiality of gender dysphoria among nontwin siblings, increased concordance for gender dysphoria in monozygotic compared with dizygotic same-sex twins, and some degree of heritability of gender dysphoria. Research suggests that gender dysphoria has a polygenetic basis involving interactions of several genes and polymorphisms that may affect in utero sexual differentiation of the brain, contributing to gender
dysphoria in individuals assigned male at birth.
As to endocrine findings in individuals with gender dysphoria, no endogenous systemic abnormalities in sex-hormone levels have been found in 46,XY individuals, whereas there appear to be increased androgen levels (in the range found in hirsute women but far below normal male levels) in 46,XX individuals. Overall, current evidence is insufficient to label gender dysphoria without a DSD as a form of intersexuality limited to the central nervous system. In gender dysphoria associated with a DSD, the likelihood of later gender dysphoria is
increased if prenatal production and utilization (via receptor sensitivity) of androgens are grossly variant relative to what is usually seen in individuals with the same assigned gender. Examples include 46,XY individuals with a history of normal male prenatal hormone milieu but inborn nonhormonal genital defects (as in cloacal bladder exstrophy or penile agenesis) and who have been assigned to the female gender. The likelihood of gender dysphoria is further enhanced by additional, prolonged, highly gender-variant postnatal androgen exposure with somatic virilization as may occur in female-raised and noncastrated 46,XY individuals with 5-alpha reductase-2 deficiency or 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency or in female-raised 46,XX individuals with classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia with prolonged periods of nonadherence to glucocorticoid replacement therapy. However, the prenatal androgen milieu is more closely related to gendered behavior than to gender identity. Many individuals with DSDs and markedly gender-variant behavior do not develop gender dysphoria. Thus, gender-nonconforming behavior by itself should not be interpreted as an indicator of current or future gender dysphoria. There appears to be a higher rate of gender dysphoria and patient-initiated gender change from assigned female to male than from assigned male to female in individuals prenatally exposed to a full complement of masculinizing hormonal influences.

Culture-Related Diagnostic Issues
Individuals with gender dysphoria have been reported across many countries and cultural contexts around the world. The equivalent of gender dysphoria has also been reported in individuals living in cultural contexts with institutionalized gender identity categories other than men/boys or women/girls that sanction gender nonconforming development. These include India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Oman, Samoa, Thailand, and Indigenous Peoples of North America. It is unclear however, in such cultural contexts, whether the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria would be met with these individuals.
The prevalence of coexisting mental health problems differs among cultures; these differences may also be related to differences in attitudes toward gender nonconformity in children, adolescents, and adults. However, also in some non-Western cultures, anxiety has been found to be relatively common in individuals with gender dysphoria, even in cultures with accepting attitudes toward gender-variant behavior.

Sex- and Gender-Related Diagnostic Issues
Sex differences in rate of referrals to specialty clinics vary by age group. In children, sex ratios of individuals assigned male at birth to individuals assigned female at birth range from 1.25:1 to 4.3:1. Studies show increasing numbers of children and adolescents presenting to specialty clinics, presentation at younger ages, more frequent early social transition, and a shift to a greater number of individuals assigned female at birth in adolescents and young adults than individuals assigned male at birth. In adults, estimates generally suggest more individuals assigned male at birth seek gender-affirming treatment, with ratios ranging from 1:1 to 6.1:1 in most studies in the United States and Europe.

Association With Suicidal Thoughts or Behavior
Rates of suicidality and suicide attempts for transgender individuals are reported to range from 30% to 80%, with risk factors including past maltreatment, gender victimization, depression, substance abuse, and younger age. Transgender adolescents referred to gender clinics have substantially higher rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors when compared with nonreferred adolescents. Prior to receiving gender-affirming treatment and legal gender reassignment, adolescents and adults with gender dysphoria are at increased risk for suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. After gender-affirming treatment, adjustment varies, and while improvement in coexisting symptoms is often seen, some individuals continue to experience prominent anxiety and affective symptoms and remain at increased risk for suicide.

A study of 572 children referred for gender identity concerns in Canada and several comparison groups (siblings, other referred children, and nonreferred children) largely from other high-income countries found that gender-referred children were 8.6 times more likely to self-harm or attempt suicide than comparison children, even after adjustment for overall behavior and peer relationship problems, and particularly in the second half of childhood. Among adolescents, the highest rate of suicide attempt is among transgender young men, followed by those defining themselves as neither male nor female.

Functional Consequences of Gender Dysphoria
Nonconformity to gender roles.
Transvestic disorder.
Body dysmorphic disorder.

Autism spectrum disorder.
Gender nonconformity may appear at all ages after the first 2–3 years of childhood and may interfere with daily activities. In older children, gender nonconformity may affect peer relationships and may lead to isolation from peer groups and to distress. Many children experience teasing and harassment or pressure to dress in attire associated with their birth-assigned sex, especially when growing up in a nonsupportive and nonaccepting environment. Also in adolescents and adults, the distress resulting from gender incongruence often interferes with daily activities. Relationship difficulties, including sexual relationship problems, are common, and functioning at school or at work may be impaired. Gender dysphoria is associated with high levels of stigmatization, discrimination, and victimization, leading to negative self-concept, increased rates of depression, suicidality, and other mental disorder co-occurrence, school dropout, and economic marginalization, including unemployment, with attendant social and mental health risks, especially in individuals who lack family or social support. In addition, these individuals’ access to health services and mental health services may be impeded by structural barriers, such as institutional discomfort about, inexperience with, or hostility toward working with this patient population.

Differential Diagnosis
Gender dysphoria should be distinguished from simple nonconformity to stereotypical gender role behavior by the strong desire to be of another gender than the assigned one and by the extent and pervasiveness of gender-variant activities and interests. The diagnosis is not meant to merely describe nonconformity to stereotypical gender role behavior (e.g., “tomboyism” in girls, “girly-boy” behavior in boys, occasional cross-dressing in adult men). Given the increased openness of gender-diverse expressions by individuals across the entire range of the transgender spectrum, it is important that the clinical diagnosis be limited to those individuals whose distress and impairment meet the specified criteria.
Transvestic disorder is diagnosed in heterosexual (or bisexual) adolescent and adult males (rarely in females) for whom women’s clothing generates sexual excitement and causes distress and/or impairment without drawing their assigned gender into question. It is occasionally accompanied by gender dysphoria. An individual with transvestic disorder who also has clinically significant gender dysphoria can be given both diagnoses. In some cases of postpubertal-onset gender dysphoria in individuals assigned male at birth who are attracted to women, cross-dressing with sexual excitement is a precursor to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
An individual with body dysmorphic disorder focuses on the alteration or removal of a specific body part because it is perceived as abnormally formed, not because it represents a repudiated assigned gender. When an individual’s presentation meets criteria for both gender dysphoria and body dysmorphic disorder, both diagnoses can be given. Individuals wishing to have a healthy limb amputated (termed by some body integrity identity disorder) because it makes them feel more “complete” usually do not wish to change gender, but rather desire to live as an amputee or a disabled person. In individuals with autism spectrum disorder, diagnosing gender dysphoria can be challenging. It can be difficult to differentiate potential co-occurring Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Other clinical presentations.
gender dysphoria from an autistic preoccupation because of the concrete and rigid thinking around gender roles and/or poor understanding of social relationships characteristic of autism spectrum disorder.
In schizophrenia, there may rarely be delusions of belonging to some other gender. In the absence of psychotic symptoms, insistence by an individual with gender dysphoria that he or she is another gender is not considered a delusion.
Schizophrenia (or other psychotic disorders) and gender dysphoria may co-occur. Gender-themed delusions may occur in up to 20% of individuals with schizophrenia. They can usually be differentiated from gender dysphoria by their bizarre content and by waxing and waning with remissions and exacerbations of psychotic episodes.
Some individuals with an emasculinization desire who develop an alternative, nonmale/nonfemale gender identity do have a presentation that meets criteria for gender dysphoria. However, some males seek genital surgery for either aesthetic reasons or to remove psychological effects of androgens without changing male identity; in these cases, the criteria for gender dysphoria are not met.

Comorbidity
Clinically referred children with gender dysphoria show elevated levels of anxiety, disruptive, impulse-control, and depressive disorders. Autism spectrum disorder is more prevalent in clinically referred adolescents and adults with gender dysphoria than in the general population.
Clinically referred adolescents and adults with gender dysphoria often have high rates of associated mental disorders, with anxiety and depressive disorders being the most common.
Individuals who have experienced harassment and violence may also develop posttraumatic stress disorder.

Other Specified Gender Dysphoria
F64.8
This category applies to presentations in which symptoms characteristic of gender dysphoria that cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate but do not meet the full criteria for gender dysphoria. The other specified gender dysphoria category is used in situations in which the clinician chooses to communicate the specific reason that the presentation does not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria. This is done by recording “other specified gender dysphoria”
followed by the specific reason (e.g., “brief gender dysphoria,” in which symptoms meet full criteria for gender dysphoria but the duration is less than the required 6 months).

Unspecified Gender Dysphoria
F64.9
This category applies to presentations in which symptoms characteristic of gender dysphoria that cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate but do not meet the full criteria for gender dysphoria. The unspecified gender dysphoria category is used in situations in which the clinician chooses not to specify the reason that the
criteria are not met for gender dysphoria, and includes presentations in which there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis.
Like am I going fucking crazy? Is it just me or this shit reads like a horror movie?
 
Like am I going fucking crazy? Is it just me or this shit reads like a horror movie?
It's unexpectedly horrifying to see the complete breakdown of objective reality in medical science. This insane manual literally defines a psychiatric condition based on whether an individual adheres to "stereotypically used" toys and games. Since when did matching corporate marketing categories like Barbie vs. Hot Wheels become the foundational criteria for a lifelong medical diagnosis? It's complete nonsense maliciously masquerading as science.

Pay close attention to the persistence rates they dropped in there: “In individuals assigned male at birth... persistence ranged from 2% to 39%.” That means for the vast majority of boys phase naturally remits if you just leave them alone and let them grow up. The very fact that transgenderism is associated with such a massive number of comorbidities should already make any attempt at its validation suspicious, especially when you realize there is evidence it is a social contagion, as shown in rapid onset gender dysphoria studies (which are conveniently dismissed by the scientific establishment). This is completely ridiculous. Just imagine if we applied similar logic to people who suffer from BID.
 
Because genuine research will prove how much a fraud feminism really is. They instead would also manipulate academia to support their flawed narrative.
 
I will address this one by one, before I read this I would first like to thank you for the lengthy detailed reply. I can see you put a lot of time and effort into this.
I would like to give my own input on this post.

I do not intend to dispute any of the claims you or the article make. What I want to do is try to shift the discourse on something a bit more fundamental and structural, since the DSM-III is brought up.

To me, while your conclusion seems correct, the problem isn't strictly related to feminist interference in academia, but the structure that allows for such politicization and polarization INSIDE of academia.

The DSM in particular represents the most egregious example of a political entity masquerading as a benefactor of sorts, as a "morally good" entity whose interests are solely the betterment of mankind and healing purportedly mentally ill people.

The article, in my opinion, does a very good job of illustrating, albeit implicitly so, the main issues with the DSM:

Anybody is free to dispute claims I make, I'm always open for constructive criticism and objective truth.
(I say this because you mentioned your intention is not to dispute, but I think you have the right to if you want to or do so accidently anyway and I just want to point out that I wouldn't be offended either way)

Alright before I address this, I'm going to restate your position so you can correct me if I'm wrong
You want to argue why the DSM (That is the handbook released by the American Psychologist Association) is hiding ulterior motives (and what those are and why that's a problem) apart from it's explicit intent to serve as THE authoritative source for diagnosing mental problems.

Additionally you argue that whereas I claim feminist interference in academia is the cause for censorship and ostracization of research into certain branches in psychology and human behaviour.
; You claim that it has to do with the overall structure / the way academia is designed that allows movements like feminism to prosper inside of it.


Additional personal note; I'm not very well versed or educated about the DSM, but from a commoner's perspective I'd be willing to believe that the DSM could be corrupt in some ways;
One reason for me to believe that is because homosexuality used to be classified as mental illness by the DSM at one point. They caved to political pressure / changing attitudes and no longer do so. This makes me a little more skeptical of them and in my eyes less objective or authoritative.
0) Psychiatry is not a science:

First and foremost, psychiatry is not a science. Its methods are clearly un-scientific, with issues of replicability, candidate selection biases, other biases of the researchers, predictive ability, and p-hacking, extremely low study population, false generalization and more. These all stem from a superficial application of statistics, essentially not utilized as a mathematical tool for inquiry of the continuum, but as a "get out of jail free" card to manipulate any set of data to spit out an answer the researcher wants. And when a researcher gets an unexpected answer, the results are generally addressed in some wishy-washy way as "we need more research on this topic" or "this result is statistically irrelevant".

With this said, research studies are practically worthless. They are merely a tool for companies and research bodies to push whatever propaganda they want to push. One clear, classic example is the SSRI propaganda as a cure for many mental illnesses, specifically those that encompass depressive symptoms. Joanna Moncrieff a few years ago conducted an umbrella-review (meta-review of a number of meta-reviews spanning thousands of clinical cases) and found no substantial correlation between SSRI intake and such psycho-pathologies improving in severity. Thus, the serotonin hypothesis as a cause of depression has been seemingly contested with ample evidence.

A link to the study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

(iirc someone here made a post about it but I can't seem to find it anywhere, if you find it please post the link down below and I'll include it here)

This is only one case, but there are more studies being conducted on medications such as lithium for personality disorders, and others. Essentially my point is that as a result of psychiatry not being based on science, and desperately needing to justify its existence, it turned to assume some bastardized traits of neurobiology, by formulating baseless hypotheses and distributing answers rooted in some way in that actually scientific discipline, but, as could've been expected, it has done more harm than good in the long run. This also gives psychiatry the ability to conceal itself and retreat into a sort of confusing mist, where it justifies itself as "neuro-psychiatry" reaping all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. It is pseudo-science, a cult.
I've skimmed through the abstract and read a bit through the discussion of the study you listed, I found this quote particularly interesting
The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals [17], and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades [14]. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities [15, 16], and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood [64,65,66]. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs [67, 68].

As with all research synthesis, the findings of this umbrella review are dependent on the quality of the included studies, and susceptible to their limitations. Most of the included studies were rated as low quality on the AMSTAR-2, but the GRADE approach suggested some findings were reasonably robust. Most of the non-genetic studies did not reliably exclude the potential effects of previous antidepressant use and were based on relatively small numbers of participants. The genetic studies, in particular, illustrate the importance of methodological rigour and sample size. Whereas some earlier, lower quality, mostly smaller studies produced marginally positive findings, these were not confirmed in better-conducted, larger and more recent studies [27, 32].


I'm not familiar with the overall consensus or research within molecular psychiatry, let alone what methods can be considered objective. However instead of agreeing that psychiatry might not be a science I'm going to give my own take and say that's it's more of a precursor to something that might turn out to be something more objective (for example how alchemy turned into chemistry, over a period of centuries)

We still know so little about the brain and the fact that they used to do lobotomies up until the late 60's makes me skeptical of the efficacy of medicine and willing to believe that there it's possible there might be a profit motive or some conspiring going on in big pharma (see insulin prices in the U.S.)
1) Voting mechanism for admission of mental illnesses into the Manual:

With this premise over, it remains a fact that the DSM catalogues mental illnesses not applying the scientific method, like you see in medicine, but by voting. This is a well established fact, stated in the DSM itself. Moreover, the DSM is at its core a descriptive manual: it is a description of probable symptoms, it does not establish causes (I will get to why later on in the comment, at point 3).

For instance, in 1973 homosexuality/homophilia was voted out of the DSM, declassified from mental illness to sexual orientation. I do not want to occupy any more of anyone's time debating whether or not it is a mental illness. The point is, if it was classified as a mental illness and after 1973 it wasn't anymore, then what is it really?
Assuming there are objective criteria for categorizing psycho-pathologies in the DSM, then homosexuality must've fulfilled those criteria. On the other hand, if it was removed, then it means that it either wasn't actually fulfilling any criteria, or that there are no such criteria for categorization. Because the DSM (more properly, the American Psychiatry Association, APA, which redacts the DSM) is not scientific, as objected to earlier, it remains for me to assert that the various illnesses have no objective criteria that allow categorization in a scientific manner, and in union with the fact that the primary mechanism is voting based, the DSM is for all intents and purposes heavily politicized.

Do you know what happened in the early 70s? Stonewall Inn riots. Pride month began to be celebrated.

There is no need to dub me a conspiracy theorist: the foundations of the APA allow for heavy political interference.


This is always justified with the magical formula "scientific consensus", which is another way of saying what I have already previously stated: there is nothing scientific about psychiatry, there is only an association of greedy (((doctors))).
I did not know this about the DSM, I find that at first glance a bit absurd. I would understand such a system would make sense for a dictionary for example, as language is as objective as the people (and the amount of people) that speak it in a given time.

human biology however doesn't evolve that fast, and whilst our environments might change faster due to technological advancements. There has to be underlying abnormalities that stay consistent.

Like I said before that declassification was my reason to be skeptical as well, but you explain it more detail than me so yeah.


One thing I will say though; I would imagine someone would use a counter argument that goes something like this (I'm purely being a devil's advocate here);
"It should be celebrated that the authors and the researchers of the DSM are willing to update and declassify or reclassify diagnoses at all, because it shows that they're trying to find a more objective truth,

Within the field of psychiatry, something is pathological when it's extreme, compulsive, or irrational behavior that often interferes with daily functioning.
Now this might have been the case in the 70s and before, as homophobia was more prevalent back then, and being openly gay could have meant less job opportunities, discrimination, the behaviour was definitely considered more abnormal/strange etc.
Nowadays, being gay is celebrated or at the very least accepted in the western world and so it no longer fits the definition of pathological, hence it's exclusion in the DSM.
Take lying for example, people lie all the time. But it doesn't have to disrupt their life, on the contrary it can benefit them. But you can also be a pathological liar."

And again I'm not familiar with the DSM, let alone all its listings of personality disorders or mental health classifications, but I would counter this argument by saying the following (It's pretty strange that I'm debating myself, but I have nothing better to do anyway)

Yes, but arguing by that logic there would also be a 'pathological homosexual' or a 'pathological heterosexual' or a 'pathological anything' Obviously that's not the case. They only list it as pathological if it's not controversial (You have workaholics for example or OCD for people that pathologically clean stuff for example, all non controversial). LGBTQ are in many countries a protected minority and there is an obvious stigma associated if you suffer from mental health problems.
The DSM has a political interest in caving to public pressure to declassify controversial diagnoses if it wants to be taken serious by the majority of the public as an authoritative source. even if the majority of the public is not an expert on the subject.

In conclusion whilst in theory I agree that a technocratic model would be more objective for the DSM or any compend of mental illnesses. In practice it's not sustainable because it wouldn't be taken serious in our current environment, mental health is far too political and relevant and maybe too new of a concept to the point that the newer generations are using therapy/psychology jargon in their day to day conversations and inventing new words relating to it.
2) ICD ties and the psychiatry market


The International Classification of Diseases encompasses not only psycho-pathologies, but all other types of illnesses too. It is a convenient handbook made by the World Health Organization, and it serves as a way to catalogue codes that doctors use to prescribe medicine and to refer to insurance companies.

The DSM-V has been written in a way that conveniently ties into the ICD-10: for every illness, an ICD code is given.

"What's so bad with this?" one might ask.

The implication of providing ICD codes directly into the DSM is that it only reinforces the perception of mental illnesses as entities that require medication to be cured (explored more in depth in point 4). You come in, explain what you have to explain, the doctor checks his 6-point checklist (oh my god the Differential Diagnoses addendum, I HAVE to make a post about it), and the doctor assigns a code with a receipt for insurance purposes.

Psychiatry has become a market. Governments push for more incentives for psychotherapy, medication and whatnot, diagnoses explode due to the incentives and special laws drafted, a "mental health emergency" is declared, more funding for bogus research that rivals papers financed by tobacco companies (jfl), more money spent in therapy sessions, medications, more power to psycho-pharmaceutical lobbies, more laws drafted, more shit inserted in the DSM. It is effectively a bubble, and it only grows bigger.

This is not a conspiracy theory, eminent psychiatrists such as Allen Frances, Gary Greenberg, Joanna Moncrieff herself have come out and denounced this book and its operations.
Allen Frances in particular presided over the drafting period and voting period of the DSM-IV. He knows this shit from the inside. He wrote a masterpiece titled "Saving Normal" which I spur anyone interested in the topic to read. Since you're here, might as well read Greenberg's "The book of Woe", a book on the DSM.
Again I'm willing to believe it, simply because I know how complex the human brain is. We don't even fully understand our bodies. and are making advances in normal medicine all the time, but we're far from done, there are still a lot of incurable diseases like cancer.

To think we have it all figured out on the mental front is delusional.

I don't know who those people are, but I would advise anyone to at the very least inform yourself as much as possible if you're considering accepting prescription medicine from psychiatrists.

Even regular doctors especially in America prescribe their patients opioids en masse to relieve pain and it's causing a massive epidemic there causing millions to be addicted. All at the benefit of course of the opioid manufactures.
It'd make sense that a similar industry could exist around a far more unknown field in medicine (I.e. psychiatry) to exploit people and make profit, not caring about the negative externalities.
3) Domain Shift

I'll be very brief here.

In order to survive, psychiatry categorically has to function as if the external world does not have any influence on the individual.
Psychiatry surely does not go so far as deny the existence of external factors in the rise of psychopathologies. However, grimly so, it focuses on pathologizing and managing the individual's response to outside stimuli as well as internal ones.
Psychiatry presumes that the individual is able to resolve his problems through the use of words alone (aka Cope Beta Therapy). "I am adonis, I am adonis, I am adonis". Psychiatry obviously, OBVIOUSLY does not have any power to modify the external factors that contribute to an individual's formative years and present condition. But in order for the market to survive, it has, IT HAS to assume as ineludible truth that the individual's domain of agency, that being the individual itself, suffices for permanent change. However, if psychiatry fails at its claimed purpose, then it is the individual's fault, for he "did not actually want to heal".

Psychiatry treats the individual as deterministic, whilst shielding itself from any critique through the free will of the individual.

Quite smart, this psychiatry scheme. And normies swallow it up naturally.

If psychiatry admitted the truth, then the whole market would implode, as there would be no need for it anymore, but people would naturally feel the need for a revolution, a change of the system. Instead, the system uses psychiatry to keep the individuals' heads down, feeding them illusions of free will and an illusion that the psychiatrists, therapists and whoever else is on the side of the individuals, whilst they are not, they are on the side of the cultish scheme they have been propagating for what? 70 years now?

This is obviously against the VERY EMPIRICALLY FACTUALLY OBSERVABLE TRUTH that external factors DO play a role in psycho-pathologies. There doesn't even need to be a total deterministic axiomatic foundation to see this. You can believe in free will, and you'll still have external factors influencing you.

I'm a bit conflicted here, whilst on the one hand I agree that it doesn't make sense for a doctor (and psychiatrists are officially doctors) to state that a treatment doesn't work because the patient doesn't want to cooperate.
(I mean imagine if an oncologist told their patient the cancer will kill you because you're letting it spread, not because our radiotherapy is ineffective)

On the other hand, psychiatry deals with the mind. And just like your immune system can reject a foreign organ transplant, You could compare the free-willed mind to that immune system, rejecting the discursive therapy treatment as something threatening or invasive.

Now don't get me wrong, a medical authoritative organization that blames its patients is absolutely silly, it should instead find a way to be able to help the people that reject certain types of treatments or even if they did try those treatments but were ineffective.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe it's a philosophical question, since the mind and it's ability to act upon free will can decide whether it wants to be treated or not perhaps there is no treatment to help them (yet).

I understand why they would be skeptical though, because the field of psychiatry is underdeveloped. Like I said before I view it as a 'science' the same way we view alchemy as a precursor to chemistry.
It might take centuries.

4) Hyper-pathologization of normal human behavior:

I cannot possibly stress this enough.
The DSM is, at its core, pathologizing every aspect of human life.
"Sad because your crush rejected you? You must be depressed"
"You have mood swings because you're a teenager having irregular hormone balance? We'll put you on lithium and literally poison you"
"Your parents never loved you and now you cannot trust others and suffer from insomnia? 2 years of CBT (definitely not cock and ball torture btw) and we'll give you potent sleeping aids."


Do you see the pattern? But of course it could only be a consequence of the previous points.
If you ever took a look at the "mental illnesses" the DSM comprises, you'd begin laughing your ass off, between "Other Specified" and "Other Unspecified" illnesses, which in jargon mean "we need to sell this goy his goyfood, let's categorize him as mentally ill with this neat category we created without any sort of scientific proof or evidence (much like all the other categories) to make a profit off of his ass".

I'll conclude this hastily drafted post (perhaps I'll make a more comprehensive and extensive one in the future, but rn I absolutely had to get my thoughts out into the world and hyperfocused on this instead of stoodymaxxing) with one very funny thing.

They pathologized Grief.

I am not kidding you.

If you grieve for longer than an arbitrarily set amount of time (iirc 12 or 18 months) you are mentally ill and need to get therapy and meds.

(this is probably incomplete I am sorry so uhm well I agree with you and wanted to expand on some more reasons why I think that article is based but implicitly so urm if you ask yourself whether I think that the studies supporting blackpill claims are invalid I say yes urm well this is awkward erm it's just my opinion even though it's kind of an informed opinion but not really but oh well, social scientists feel free to use your cultish knowledge to debate me I won't budge yes you heard me right you are part of a cult your textbooks are written in cultish ways the dsm is a cult manual and your professors are weird liberal faggots haha take this fuckers hahahahahahahahahahahahah)

@GeckoBus @AtrociousCitizen @Izayacel
Ultimately I don't disagree with your points,
but I think the field of psychiatry, psychology and the DSM are in it's early stages and so it is wise to be skeptical and inform yourself first and try to help yourself first if possible. The treatments they provide do work for some people, but definitely not all people. The same way traditional medicine does or doesn't.

The fields of psychiatry and psychology are the only 'scientific' ways to treat mental health. It's best we have.
The same way that religion played a big role in almost every part of society (government, the arts, science (Isaac Newton wrote more about theology and the Bible than he did about mathematics or physics, leaving behind over a million words of unpublished notes. He viewed the Bible as the literal Word of God but believed it contained encrypted prophecies and argued that the Church had deliberately corrupted early texts)
 
I can see you put a lot of time and effort into this.
not really that's why it was most probably incoherent as fuck lol.
You want to argue why the DSM (That is the handbook released by the American Psychologist Association) is hiding ulterior motives (and what those are and why that's a problem) apart from it's explicit intent to serve as THE authoritative source for diagnosing mental problems.
Not quite. The DSM currently is and has been for decades the standard for diagnosticians. It is studied in university courses both in the USA and outside of it, and since it and the ICD are so deeply intertwined, even worldwide diagnosticians refer to it consistently.

My main claim is that the DSM is bogus, psychiatry is not a science and as a consequence the wikipedia article operates within the domain of the psychiatric system whilst there is no need to do so, arguably a better criticism of the disorder not being put into the DSM stems from what the DSM actually is and how mental illnesses are inserted into it.

The ulterior motive is clear as day in my opinion, as in they're not even hiding it that well, and that's basically point 2) of the list.
Additionally you argue that whereas I claim feminist interference in academia is the cause for censorship and ostracization of research into certain branches in psychology and human behaviour.
; You claim that it has to do with the overall structure / the way academia is designed that allows movements like feminism to prosper inside of it.
Yes but now that I look at it, that which I raised isn't even a counterpoint, as we seem to agree on it. Feminism is indeed causing a whole amount of censorship. The main point which you haven't made explicit though is that not only feminism acts to censor research (eg companies, lobbies, lgbt, blm...), so it logically points to a structural defect in the system of social science research. I believe I haven't stated it clearly in my OP.
However instead of agreeing that psychiatry might not be a science I'm going to give my own take and say that's it's more of a precursor to something that might turn out to be something more objective
I see what your point is, however how is it opposed to my formulation? Meaning, with this take, you could lean into either thinking that psychiatry is a science, or that it isn't. So I would ask for clarification just to understand your position.

Regarding the quote, it broke me when I first read it because it is an admission that these researchers, irrespective of my opinions on psychiatry, are objectively basing their supposed cures on faulty studies. Even if psychiatry was scientific in nature, the industry has been running on studies and meta-reviews that are INVALID due to methodological errors and manipulation of data, as per the quote.
Like I said before that declassification was my reason to be skeptical as well,
Allow me to quote directly from one of the official manuals that orbit around the DSM-V-TR, the manual for Differential Diagnoses, pages 12-13. Context: Detailing the 6-step procedure of "Differential Diagnosis Step by Step" [as opposed to "by the Trees"].
Step 6: Establish the Boundary With No Mental Disorder

Generally, the last step in each of the decision trees is to establish the boundary between a disorder and no mental disorder. This decision is by no means the least important or easiest to make. Taken individually, many of the symptoms included in DSM-5-TR are fairly ubiquitous and are not by themselves indicative of the presence of a mental disorder.
During the course of their lives, most people may experience periods of anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, or sexual dysfunction that may be considered as no more than an expected part of the human condition.
To be explicit
that not every such individual qualifies for a diagnosis of a mental disorder, DSM-5-TR includes with most criteria sets a criterion that is usually worded more or less as follows: “The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” This criterion requires that any psychopathology must lead to clinically significant problems in order to warrant a mental disorder diagnosis. For example, a diagnosis of Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder, which includes the requirement that the low sexual desire causes clinically significant distress in the individual, would not be made in a man with low sexual desire who is not currently in a relationship and who is not particularly bothered by the low desire.
Unfortunately, but necessarily, DSM-5-TR makes no attempt to define the term clinically significant. The boundary between disorder and normality can be set only by clinical judgment and not by any hard-and-fast rules. What may seem clinically significant is undoubtedly influenced by the cultural context, the setting in which the individual is seen, clinician bias, patient bias, and the availability of resources.
“Minor” depression may seem much more clinically significant in a primary care setting than in a psychiatric emergency room or state hospital where the emphasis is on the identification and treatment of far more impairing conditions.
In clinical mental health settings, the judgment regarding whether a presentation is clinically significant is often a nonissue; the fact that the individual has sought help automatically makes it “clinically significant.” More challenging are situations in which the symptomatic picture is discovered in the course of treating another mental disorder or a nonpsychiatric medical condition, which, given the high comorbidity among mental disorders and between mental disorders and nonpsychiatric medical conditions, is not an uncommon occurrence.
Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the comorbid psychiatric presentation warrants clinical attention and treatment, it is considered to be clinically significant.
I have tried to pinpoint the areas where, in my interpretation, the manual implodes and reveals all of its illogical nature and sectarian language.

The first couple of paragraphs, taken in isolation, are completely fine in my opinion. However, what follows isn't:
1) The non-definition of the criterion "clinically significant", which is a term of utmost importance since any diagnosis needs to confirm its fulfillment;
2) The justification of such an absence, revealing two things: psychiatry is not accessible by anyone other than the psychiatrist, in clear contrast with the scientific Galileian methodology; the obvious is stated, that the mind cannot be clearly categorized, and thus cannot be clearly judged to be pathological.
3) Perhaps the biggest here, the unapologetic circular reasoning that clinical significance is defined as individuals seeking help because they are in a state of distress, which is clinical significance. With this, everything that was written before doesn't even matter, all the things about biases and lack of resources and such things, it's all vain. When you define something so crucial in such a way, you're essentially saying "if you come here, this criterion is automatically satisfied (unless you are lying, but even then, you are believed from the outset, and only after many appointments the doctor might suspect you're lying if you're retarded and aren't consistent about it, see the below quote for proof)", basically invalidating it, because if everyone who comes there satisfies it by default, then it is as if it did not exist.
4) The final part about comorbidities is pure genius too, "if a comorbid yadda yadda warrants clinical attention, then it's clinically significant" wow, like, you haven't even tried here.

proof for 3): [p.3]
The intent is certainly not to advocate that every patient be treated as a hostile witness nor that every clinician become a cynical district attorney. Rather, the clinician’s index of suspicion should be raised 1) when there are clear external incentives to the patient for a psychiatric diagnosis (e.g., disability determinations, forensic evaluations in criminal or civil cases, prison settings), 2) when the patient presents with a cluster of psychiatric symptoms that conforms more to a lay perception of mental illness than to a recognized clinical entity, 3) when the nature of the symptoms shifts radically from one clinical encounter to another, 4) when the patient has a presentation that mimics that of a role model (e.g., another patient on the unit, a mentally ill close family member), and 5) when the patient is characteristically manipulative or suggestible. Finally, it is useful for clinicians to become mindful of tendencies they might have toward being either excessively skeptical or excessively gullible.



Everything is up to the discretion of the diagnostician in short: there are no set-in-stone ways to determine any mental illness, circular definition of the most crucial term in the whole manual, and a sectarian tone that allows the "change therapist/you were not willing to be cured" lines to be said of patients who do not improve.
"It should be celebrated that the authors and the researchers of the DSM are willing to update and declassify or reclassify diagnoses at all, because it shows that they're trying to find a more objective truth,

Within the field of psychiatry, something is pathological when it's extreme, compulsive, or irrational behavior that often interferes with daily functioning.
Now this might have been the case in the 70s and before, as homophobia was more prevalent back then, and being openly gay could have meant less job opportunities, discrimination, the behaviour was definitely considered more abnormal/strange etc.
Nowadays, being gay is celebrated or at the very least accepted in the western world and so it no longer fits the definition of pathological, hence it's exclusion in the DSM.
Take lying for example, people lie all the time. But it doesn't have to disrupt their life, on the contrary it can benefit them. But you can also be a pathological liar."
Then the DSM is simply not the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", but a collection of behaviors deemed socially/culturally inappropriate at a particular historical period....


which it pretty much is already.
Two things here:

1) the APA (((doctors))) aren't totally stupid, they disguise the ridiculous entries with some that are either neurobiological diseases (eg Alzheimer's) or are conjectured to be caused by imbalances in the neuro-chemistry of an individual (eg Bipolar Disorder or BPD).

2) You can download and see for yourself a PDF containing the various different updates to the DSM-V-TR (I believe from the dsm website itself tho idr).

A couple of relevant quotes (a lot of pages are filled with coding changes because MONEYYYY):
III. Text Updates [p.9]
III.A
Attention to Culture, Racism, and Discrimination in DSM-5-TR (p. 18)
Reason for change: The text was updated to add a sentence reflecting the evolving nature of language and terminology used in the DSM and the DSM-5-TR Steering Committee’s commitment to monitor and update the language accordingly.
Revised text:
DSM-5-TR is committed to the use of language that challenges the view that races are discrete and natural entities. The text uses terminology such as racialized instead of racial to highlight the socially constructed nature of race. When the term ethnoracial is used in the text, it denotes the U.S. Census categories, such as Hispanic, White, or African American, that combine ethnic and racialized identifiers. As language continues to evolve, the terminology used in the manual may change in keeping with this social evolution. The emerging term Latinx (singular and plural) is used in place of Latino/a to promote gender-inclusive terminology. The term Caucasian is not used because it is based on obsolete and erroneous views about the geographic origin of a prototypical pan-European ethnicity. The terms minority and non-White are avoided because they describe social groups in relation to a racialized “majority,” a practice that tends to perpetuate social hierarchies. When necessary for clarity in reporting epidemiological or other information based on specific studies, however, the text uses the group labels from the relevant studies. The term culture is used not to refer to a discrete social group (e.g., “prevalence differs across cultures”) but rather to indicate the heterogeneity of cultural views and practices within societies; the terms cultural contexts or cultural backgrounds are preferred instead.

III.C Prolonged Grief Disorder – Differential Diagnosis [p.23]
Reason for change: To provide clarity about the distinction between normal grief and prolonged grief disorders in the Differential Diagnosis section.
Original text:
Normal grief. Prolonged grief disorder is distinguished from normal grief by the presence of severe grief reactions that persist at least 12 months (6 months in children or adolescents) after the death of a person who was close to the bereaved individual. It is only when severe levels of grief response persist for the specified duration following the death, interfere with the individual’s capacity to function, and exceed cultural, social, or religious norms that prolonged grief disorder is diagnosed.
Revised text:
Normal grief. Prolonged grief disorder is distinguished from normal grief by the presence of severe grief reactions that persist at least 12 months (6 months in children or adolescents) after the death of a person who was close to the bereaved individual. It is only when the severe levels of grief response persists for the specified duration following the death, is clinically significant (i.e., causes clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning) interfere with the individual’s capacity to function, and exceeds cultural, social, or religious norms that prolonged grief disorder is diagnosed.

Besides the first one which is... something, the Prolonged Grief Disorder lists criteria which are absurd for a so called "science".
Cultural, social, religious norms; undefined "clinically significant" (the parenthetical definition makes me very very sad [opinion]). The question is, CAN A NIGGA GRIEVE ANYMORE?
I started this particular detour with the intention to prove that the DSM is a catalogue of socially/culturally inappropriate behaviors.
I think I made my point clear. It may not be true. It may be cherry-picking. Disclaimer: I am not a student of psychology/any social science/psychiatry. I am a simple mathematics undergrad. I haven't read the totality of the DSM and orbiting manuals, however I have read some bits that "blackpilled" me on it, and I plan to fully read them all because of a book I'm writing that deals with psychiatry, among other things. They weren't cherry-picked for me, though I cannot prove it and thus I am basically requiring faith. You may choose or not choose to believe me on it, however the quoted text is available at the coordinates I gave you.
The DSM has a political interest in caving to public pressure to declassify controversial diagnoses if it wants to be taken serious by the majority of the public as an authoritative source. even if the majority of the public is not an expert on the subject.
I don't think members of the public in general are aware of the DSM. Rather, the DSM provides the scriptures that the psychiatrists spread and execute. Fundamentally we agree, just felt the autistic need to say that.
In conclusion whilst in theory I agree that a technocratic model would be more objective for the DSM or any compend of mental illnesses
I don't know what that is tbh. I see the word "technocratic" and my Kaczynski sensors go off immediately though kek. Would like to hear what that is though.
mental health is far too political and relevant
(((all according to plan)))
Even regular doctors especially in America prescribe their patients opioids en masse to relieve pain and it's causing a massive epidemic there causing millions to be addicted. All at the benefit of course of the opioid manufactures.
I mean bro: cocaine, heroine, morphine, cigarettes, alcohol were all prescribed by Western Doctors as medication to cure illnesses. It's nothing new when you put it in perspective (actually scratch that, we know the nature of opiods and the neurochemistry associated with them, so it's even more grim)


I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THE REPLY TO POINT 3 LATER
but I think the field of psychiatry, psychology and the DSM are in it's early stages
I am going to word this the best I can to not be misunderstood. Do forgive me if I come off as pretentious, it is not my intention.
The point is, what constitutes "early stages"? Psychology has been formally studied since the mid to late 19th centruy (in 189x we discovered electrons and by 1930 we had discovered the other two subatomical particles, Maxwell formalized his equations in 1865, I'd say enough time has passed personally), same goes for psychiatry, the DSM-I was published in 1952 (the early to middle 20th century was when the study of quantum physics began, and we know wayyy more about it then the mind today).

My point is, I do not think time can be a valid argument to make because in the same span, we have understood so many more things that are scientifically formalized and true, but psychiatry has accomplished none of that. That is because...
The same way that religion played a big role in almost every part of society
They are not sciences, but philosophies, much like religion is (theology strictly, but it can be said the same about the common religious practice, for lack of better terminology.)


On point 3
I'm a bit conflicted here, whilst on the one hand I agree that it doesn't make sense for a doctor (and psychiatrists are officially doctors) to state that a treatment doesn't work because the patient doesn't want to cooperate.
(I mean imagine if an oncologist told their patient the cancer will kill you because you're letting it spread, not because our radiotherapy is ineffective)

On the other hand, psychiatry deals with the mind. And just like your immune system can reject a foreign organ transplant, You could compare the free-willed mind to that immune system, rejecting the discursive therapy treatment as something threatening or invasive.

Now don't get me wrong, a medical authoritative organization that blames its patients is absolutely silly, it should instead find a way to be able to help the people that reject certain types of treatments or even if they did try those treatments but were ineffective.
I do not wish to be arrogant but I will copy directly an excerpt of the book I mentioned before, because I think that what you say can be answered almost completely by it. It's written in a cringe ass academic voice, I know:
If therapy presents itself as the primary, if not exclusive, methodology to alleviate individual psychological distress, its structural formulation must be rigorously examined. Indeed, a profound contradiction emerges when its axiomatic foundations are inquired upon: de jure, modern therapeutic disciplines may claim to acknowledge the existence of socioeconomic, environmental, or other systemic stressors. However, de facto, the entire mechanism operates within a closed loop that treats the individual conscience as the sole variable susceptible to modification.

By restricting its field of action exclusively to the internal cognitive structure of the subject, the system operates under the following Ghost Axiom: it acts as if external realities were immutable, non-measurable constants, or altogether non-existent.

This structural choice executes a fundamental inversion of causal etiology: when a biological organism exhibits symptoms of distress—such as generalized anxiety, chronic depression, or systemic isolation—as a deterministic, logical response to a toxic or hostile environment, the system does not target the psycho-pathogenic environment, but the diagnostic alert system: the individual.



Suddenly, therapy acquires a salvific sense that is comparable to a figure such as Jesus Christ healing the sick; here, the existence of any external stressor, or, more generally, of any psycho-pathogenic factor of external etiology, is functionally neutralized in favor of a view of the individual which is most convenient for the maintenance of the system. This is asserted in a rather absolute manner as it is clear that such factors do exist in reality, and are measurable.

This would be enough to automatically declassify therapy from a science to a form of cult. Yet, the analysis goes deeper to show how therapy switches from a Myth (Therapy is able to help individuals to deal with their issues) to a Theodicy (if therapy does not work for you, then it is your fault, as you did not truly want to heal). First, the experience of therapy depends in a relevant magnitude on the individual professional figure. “If therapy is not working for you, just change your therapist”, is generally the first reply to an individual expressing a negative feedback on a therapeutic experience. There lies a problem in this sentence: therapy is described not as an exact scientific method to relieve a subject of his or her psycho-pathologies, but as ritual conversation. There is, though, a much more evident, structural problem: the sole discriminant for the outcome of the treatment is shifted from the efficacy of the method to the patient’s “will”.

Why “will”? The system postulates an additional cause to explain its failure, that being: “the patient must not be fully convinced” or, equivalently, "the patient exhibits mental resistance to therapy". There is no way for anyone to measure “mental resistance to therapy”; this is another of the GAs [Ghost Axioms, that is, uncritically accepted fundamental axioms that allow a system to continue existing, dubbed "Ghost" as they are almost always glossed over in discussions or not rendered explicit anywhere, yet relevant in an empirical way for the survival of the system in question] the system utilizes to justify itself not only post hoc, but formulate a proposition of the type post hoc ergo propter hoc: the sole way to gauge the existence of any mental resistance is if the treatment works. This creates a logical tautology: if treatment fails, all of the blame is put on the patient, for he wasn’t “fully convinced that he wanted to heal”; if the patient is “fully convinced”, then treatment will not fail. By defining the cause (will) only through the effect (success), therapy insulates itself from any possible refutation. Thus, therapy acquires the characteristics of a religion, in which the patients must have faith. We have reached the breaking point: in order for therapy to work, one must take a leap of faith and believe first that one needs therapy, and second, perhaps most eerily, that therapy holds within itself the answer to all of one’s problems, if one lends itself to it completely, because it denies at its core the existence of problems outside of the individual’s consciousness, essentially making the patient fool him or herself. The issue with this is of two types: first, it isn’t anything resembling science anymore, but a cult: nothing about this is demonstrable, nor falsifiable. Evidently, we are not dealing with a purely medical treatment, where the mechanism of action is independent of the patient’s volition; second, the sole justification for therapy appears to be the fact that it seems to produce results, completely ignoring external data, the spontaneous resolution of issues over time, or the fact that some structural problems are objective environmental realities, not machinations of the mind. Some problems, indeed, are out of the individual’s domain of agency. And yet, there is no regard for these hypotheses: the Myth of Infallibility dissolves into a Theodicy of Patient Guilt. But therapy is merely a part of the much wider “Mental Health” system, comprising other sub-systems like self-help content, in the form of videos, books, courses, coaches; gym culture, in the sense of a culture of treating the gym environment like a panacea for systemic or existential distress; meditation gurus, often citing mantras or sutras that border between superstition and religion.

To conclude, this analysis has only utilized logic, but in our triangular methodology, it is not at all difficult to reveal that therapy fails miserably in its curative objective: while it is true that specialized laws and incentives designed to encourage the individual to seek therapeutic help—drafted due to an ever-increasing rate of depression, generalized anxiety, loneliness, and other such psycho-pathologies—do exist, the measurable fact that such laws, incentives and, in particular, therapy itself, when deployed post-diagnosis, have failed to yield a statistically relevant reduction in systemic distress among the cataloged individuals is indicative that the System is deliberately applying a microscopic tool to a macroscopic issue. The System excels at cataloging its victims, yet fails to address the environmental etiology that generates them, proving that mental health awareness is often a tool for market expansion and systemic oppression rather than for human liberation.

The "immune system rejecting transplanted organs" is not due to the immune system choosing to reject such an organ, but it is due to clearly defined biological markers (antigens) that are recognized as foreign and thus activate the immune system. It is the same mechanism by which allergic reactions are caused by factors such as animal fur, dust, pollen etc. I see this comparison a lot, but it's faulty. Furthermore, it is similar in nature to a sort of "God of the Gaps" reasoning by which if we don't know something, than it must be that there is some supernatural entity causing it (after all, "free will" is a sort of supernatural entity). Logically speaking, we cannot determine whether we're living under a universal deterministic framework or not, because we're inside of it and can only use tools inside of it (Affine to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, but applying mathematics to philosophy is kind of iffy, that's why I say "affine to").
What I'm trying to say is that maybe it's a philosophical question, since the mind and it's ability to act upon free will can decide whether it wants to be treated or not perhaps there is no treatment to help them (yet).
I wish to be completely clear on this one point: if psychiatry can help someone overcome their issues, that is great. What I criticize is the error of calling it a science and all the contradictions inherent to psychiatry and the DSM and whatnot. And I have found that there is a movement among psychiatrists themselves to propose an alternative to the DSM. I do not think that proves that I am objectively right in all or even in some of my objections, but that at least there are professionals in the field of psychiatry that have grimaces with the current system.


long ass yap. thanks for actually reading my previous message.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
7
Views
402
4RAB.GUY
4RAB.GUY
TOP_5_KAPPA
Replies
21
Views
787
DJmaxxingMusicCel
D
AutismKing
Replies
13
Views
479
Dean_Benoit_93
Dean_Benoit_93

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top