Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5

Yes.

So the idea, the DSM-5's definition of AUD, alcohol use disorder, supports the idea that sobriety, quote, is a part of the definition of recovery, but not the whole thing.

Since patients can also reach remission by reducing drinking and whatever criteria that led to their diagnosis.

So basically what they're saying is, if, if you can moderate your drinking, then you're still, you're in recovery, which here's the problem with that to me.

Your body can obviously influence your inner person, but many of the things that are described as illnesses, pathological illnesses, there's no verifiable proof.

Rather, we're using the DSM-5 to describe symptoms, and then based off of that symptom, it's put into a cluster of symptoms you're diagnosed.

But nine times out of 10, there was no CT scan, MRI, lab.

There is no measurement of vitamin deficiencies.

And I'm like, no, that is not a correct.

I mean, I'm grieving my child, but do you have to make a DSM-5 diagnosis for this when it's something that is a normal part of life? Yeah.

Absolutely.

Yes.

And that's one of the reasons that it's not diagnosed easily.

The second reason is that the DSM-V does not list it as a separate disorder.

And the third reason is that the hallmark of this illness are moments of psychosis and lucidity right up against each other, which the prosecution in a trial uses to say, "This woman knew what she was doing." Uh, if you guys watched the Lindsay Clancy trial recently, you probably saw a lot of that.

If you are lucky enough to get a provider to listen to you, they will usually s-s-assume that you have postpartum depression because that is far more prevalent.

I'm just going to put it out there.

As a therapist, the DSM-5, in my opinion, is a pile of junk.

It's been created by men for men to diagnose people who do not fit societal norms.

Yes.

But I think the point is, is that there are some character traits that we can pull from some of these diagnoses, of course, right? And a lot of them, by the way, I'll just say as an aside, a lot of these diagnoses were created without research.

They were just behaviors that came up.

So there's not even a research-based information that we have in this DSM-5, the Bible, that we use to diagnose people.

It's kind of insane.

A neurologist can diagnose.

Anybody who can diagnose using the DSM-5 can diagnose, but not everybody knows that.

FAS isn't listed there.

I'm Doctors aren't – it's challenging because – and I've interviewed a few doctors who specialize in this.

But yeah, I was diagnosed with ADHD at 34.

And it was really interesting for me because as I started to learn more about how ADHD presents in women, how neurodiversity in general presents in women, why we're not recognized as, you know, or tested as little kids is because the DSM-5.

was all based around studying little white boys right so there's even more nuance not just a gender difference but even racial differences cultural differences if you will of how these things um how these different symptoms manifest themselves right And so for women, for young girls, we are socially bred to not stir up any trouble, to be the mature ones, to have ourselves together.

You know, there's this we're kind of we're trained to mask from birth.

So I want to start off by saying I am not speaking about MPD.

This is not narcissistic personality disorder from the DSM-5 revise.

So very clear that when we use it like on social media or I talk about it here, it is a personality trait.

not the disorder, very clear.