It also led to the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. And, e.g. the chemical castration of Alan Turing. But at the same time if you've ever

It also led to the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. And, e.g. the chemical castration of Alan Turing. But at the same time if you've ever spent time with people with serious dehabilitating mental illness, it's clear there are a lot of people who are very seriously struggling and very much need help and aren't capable of seeking it out on their own. And if you've ever experienced any kind of mental illness or talked in depth to someone who has, it's clear it's a very real phenomena and not just someone daring to be different. So while I agree with the general thrust of your post I think this: >It makes the subjective and critical judgement that the behavior exhibited by most people signifies health, and any deviance from the statistical mean is diseased; evolution be damned. Is unfair. It's a tough line to thread, which is why psychiatrists and philosophers spend lifetimes working on these issues and trying to figure out where the line is. It's absolutely not the case that "any deviance from the statistical mean is diseased"; this is not an unfair characterization of what was done at the inception of the field when people understood nothing, and it's certainly a good warning about how powerful and dangerous it is classify something or someone as 'insane' (read Foucault! Who is shockingly missing from this article!) but it's not a fair critique of modern day psychiatric medicine.