LogFAQs > #922647219

I mean, if the primary means of treatment is physical, it makes sense to not call it a mental disorder. The treatment approach acknowledges that the problem is with the body, not the mind. It may shift back to mental if future developments in treatment start favouring cognitive approaches. It may not. Only time will tell, so everyone should just shut up and let science do its job.

Lokarin posted...

Is something that's not part of the median/mean a disorder by default?

It's abnormal (a term which carries far more pejorative connotations than it ought to, given how statistically objective it is), but in order to qualify as a disorder, an aberration has to have a significant negative impact on the person and those around them. Heterochromia, for example, is very much abnormal, but nobody would really call it a disorder because it's generally not going to hurt those people.

Of course, there's some room for argument about classifying something as a disorder when negative effects arise from how other people respond to the condition, rather than anything intrinsic. If, for example, it were common for heterochromic people to be lynched in the streets, one could argue that heterochromia would qualify as a disorder, and declassify it as such if society progressed to a point where that was no longer true. This is basically what happened with homosexuality between the DSM3 and DSM4.