i don’t think that is true? the DSM-V is about labeling collections of symptoms (in large part because of past failings from attempting to separate conditions by subjective conceptions of where the symptoms originate, a judgement that will drastically change depending on how much the judgemaker e.g. trusts in one Sigmund Freud), and any pervasive and long-lasting depression is classified as clinical depression (major depressive disorder)
(and a FYIFYIFYI to the onlookers: i think Kolanski gets this but “when your depression is not a symptom of something else” wouldn’t be neurodiversity either as the destructive results would still exist without pressure from neuronormative society to fit in)
i don’t think that is true? the DSM-V is about labeling collections of symptoms (in large part because of past failings from attempting to separate conditions by subjective conceptions of where the symptoms originate, a judgement that will drastically change depending on how much the judgemaker e.g. trusts in one Sigmund Freud), and any pervasive and long-lasting depression is classified as clinical depression (major depressive disorder)
(and a FYIFYIFYI to the onlookers: i think Kolanski gets this but “when your depression is not a symptom of something else” wouldn’t be neurodiversity either as the destructive results would still exist without pressure from neuronormative society to fit in)