4 ms·

> The reason people "cling" to labels, is because when you're suffering from something as severe and difficult to live with in normal society such as complex/ch

> The reason people "cling" to labels, is because when you're suffering from something as severe and difficult to live with in normal society such as complex/chronic PTSD, answering the question "What the hell is wrong with you?" becomes extremely difficult without these labels, and will drive one to despair trying to explain and maintain normal relationships. I think this point of view ignores the main point of the article: the social labels, not the trait that substantiates those social labels. There are people who self-assign those labels in spite of not actually having been diagnosed with any condition, and go as far as making the label a central part of their identity. The fact that using these labels is not necessarily correlated with actually having the conditions is the key aspect.

JohnMakin 2y ago
> There are people who self-assign those labels in spite of not actually having been diagnosed with any condition so what? >The fact that using these labels is not necessarily correlated with actually having the conditions is the key aspect. fact according to who? the evidence in this article is weak. and even if you assume it is actually true, what is the actual problem here? you cannot simultaneously proclaim that self diagnosis is invalid while proclaiming that the same DSM professionals use to make diagnoses is invalid, without doing a lot of explaining and gap-filling. It is one or the other.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > so what? So that's exactly the whole point of this discussion: turning psychiatric labels into identities. > fact according to who? According to the fact that people do self-portray and self-identify as labels in spite of not even subjecting themselves to a diagnose or even actually any condition. To deny this fact you need to deny things like for example Munchausen syndrome or even hypochondria.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    > So that's exactly the whole point of this discussion: turning psychiatric labels into identities. So, I still have the question - what is your problem with this? I guess I don't really have anything else to say without violating site rules other than you are the exact reason mental illness stigma exists to the degree it does today.
Llamamoe 2y ago
Everything you say is pure rhetoric, meant to gatekeep who gets to "justify" their struggles with mental illness, which is what this whole debate is always about. You can't just f-ing assume that people are "making the label a central part of their identity" spontaneously as though you know what's going inside their minds better than they do. It's ridiculously disrespectful and dismissive of the likely issues leading them to do so. And not everyone is capable of getting a diagnosis for a number of reasons.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Everything you say is pure rhetoric, (...) Do people self-assign those labels in spite of not actually having been diagnosed with any condition? Yes or no? If the answer is "no" then your post is just nonsense.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > Everything you say is pure rhetoric, meant to gatekeep who gets to "justify" their struggles with mental illness, which is what this whole debate is always about. Exactly - and there's no winning this argument at all with people like this. Say this hypothetical person (causing harm to who?) finally gets a real diagnosis from a real professional - people like this will often dismiss the diagnosis out of hand, with vague comments about how the DSM isn't "science" or that the doctor was incompetent, etc. I cannot help but feel that the root sentiment behind this stuff is a deep loathing for people struggling with mental illness - or at the very least a profound lack of empathy. I have never really understood it.

JohnMakin 2y ago

> There are people who self-assign those labels in spite of not actually having been diagnosed with any condition so what? >The fact that using these labels is not necessarily correlated with actually having the conditions is the key aspect. fact according to who? the evidence in this article is weak. and even if you assume it is actually true, what is the actual problem here? you cannot simultaneously proclaim that self diagnosis is invalid while proclaiming that the same DSM professionals use to make diagnoses is invalid, without doing a lot of explaining and gap-filling. It is one or the other.

chipdart 2y ago
> so what? So that's exactly the whole point of this discussion: turning psychiatric labels into identities. > fact according to who? According to the fact that people do self-portray and self-identify as labels in spite of not even subjecting themselves to a diagnose or even actually any condition. To deny this fact you need to deny things like for example Munchausen syndrome or even hypochondria.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > So that's exactly the whole point of this discussion: turning psychiatric labels into identities. So, I still have the question - what is your problem with this? I guess I don't really have anything else to say without violating site rules other than you are the exact reason mental illness stigma exists to the degree it does today.

Llamamoe 2y ago

Everything you say is pure rhetoric, meant to gatekeep who gets to "justify" their struggles with mental illness, which is what this whole debate is always about. You can't just f-ing assume that people are "making the label a central part of their identity" spontaneously as though you know what's going inside their minds better than they do. It's ridiculously disrespectful and dismissive of the likely issues leading them to do so. And not everyone is capable of getting a diagnosis for a number of reasons.

chipdart 2y ago
> Everything you say is pure rhetoric, (...) Do people self-assign those labels in spite of not actually having been diagnosed with any condition? Yes or no? If the answer is "no" then your post is just nonsense.
JohnMakin 2y ago
> Everything you say is pure rhetoric, meant to gatekeep who gets to "justify" their struggles with mental illness, which is what this whole debate is always about. Exactly - and there's no winning this argument at all with people like this. Say this hypothetical person (causing harm to who?) finally gets a real diagnosis from a real professional - people like this will often dismiss the diagnosis out of hand, with vague comments about how the DSM isn't "science" or that the doctor was incompetent, etc. I cannot help but feel that the root sentiment behind this stuff is a deep loathing for people struggling with mental illness - or at the very least a profound lack of empathy. I have never really understood it.