[TeaBrain]

You misinterpreted the part of the comment you referred to. They aren't referring to redefining the word "disorder", but "the disorder", as in "ADHD". What they were referring to with the definition is how the definition of ADHD is completely arbitrarily defined, as the diagnosis isn't based on any genetic marker.

[hilux]

> ... how the definition of ADHD is completely arbitrarily defined, as the diagnosis isn't based on any genetic marker.

Did you know that 90% of cases of ALS aren't "based on any genetic marker"? Does that mean ALS is "arbitrarily defined"? What does that even mean? Are you saying it isn't real?

[TeaBrain]

I wasn't saying anything from my point of view. I was simply explaining the misinterpretation in the comment above, though I should have said biomarker instead of genetic marker.

[falcolas]

> the diagnosis isn't based on any genetic marker

Neither is depression, PTSD, autism, chronic pain, schizophrenia, narcissism, MPD, and so forth. But they all exist. And they can all be debilitating to the point of becoming a disorder. They all have treatments according to their classification.

Being invisible doesn't make it not be a disorder.

[cj]

We all agree it’s a disorder. No one is debating that.

[TeaBrain]

No one claimed disorders don't exist.