They seem to believe in some magical distinction between disorders and non-disorders that I doubt can be established consistently in a meaningful manner and is

They seem to believe in some magical distinction between disorders and non-disorders that I doubt can be established consistently in a meaningful manner and is pretty far from relevant. I think the meaningful way to think about mental disorders is that it simply means that a person have a slightly abnormal psychological condition that affects their quality of life in a significantly negative manner. The classification is helpful to get the right kind of help dealing with the condition. That some abnormal psychological conditions can be reasonable reactions to stimuli isn't that relevant IMO. A broken leg is a normal reaction to hitting a tree when skiing, but we still need medical care when it happens. If scientists then wants to discuss whether it should be called unable-to-walk disorder or a broken leg, I guess let them, but that discussion is just about terminology and unless I see concrete proof that it's more important than the treatment I don't think it's clinically relevant.