There's one critical nuance here on the physiological issue. Physiological differences imply that an issue is a product of biological, physical, or other source

There's one critical nuance here on the physiological issue. Physiological differences imply that an issue is a product of biological, physical, or other sources outside of individual choice or mental mechanisms, but this is not necessarily so. A great example of this is the difference between amateur and master chess players. An entirely different area of the brain is used when masters analyze a position than when amateurs do. So the knee-jerk reaction there would be to say that then that's evidence that masters are just somehow physiologically different. Of course that's false. Everybody begins with the 'amateur brain'. It's just that dedicated training and development physiologically changes the individual. So the problem here is that our ability to observe physiological differences, particularly given the development of EEG/MRI/CT/etc, has radically outpaced our ability to have any clue what they mean. The point being that just because a "condition" has a physiological manifestation in no way whatsoever then directly implies that the condition is therefore physical or can even be realistically 'treated'. For instance, we're not going to develop a drug to make you a strong chess player anytime in the foreseeable future. And while perhaps you could create a drug to make a master a weak player again, it would almost certainly be little more than a glorified lobotomy.