Fair enough, but the point I'm making is less about self identification/labelling of belief, but rather the basis of those beliefs. For example: A diagnosis of

Fair enough, but the point I'm making is less about self identification/labelling of belief, but rather the basis of those beliefs. For example: A diagnosis of autism is more than a statement about a persons beliefs; and there is no such thing as being diagnosed as a Christian, or a Republican. AFAIK clinical diagnoses are a somewhat "physical", or phycological description (whatever the difference there is), of a persons neurology that is more than just belief, or even personality. Pathology seems to be less environmental, and affect a persons mental abilities to a greater degree than "belief". Consequently, I wouldn't argue what a person says they believe; but then I also wouldn't consider those beliefs inherent, or non-consensual either.