Scott H wrote:

"The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social,
occupational, or other important areas of functioning. "

As you may know, but not know why, I can't accept the reasoning behind
that- its logically incoherent.

How did the 'disturbance' inform you that there was an impairment??

Do you see my point? You first judge that there is a social impairment,
then you find the physical concommitments of that impairment. But then
you make an unjustified move. You THEN claim that the physical
concommitants themselves are disturbances or impairments, and that it is
these that show you that there is a social impairment!! Do you see the
circularity?

John Jones wrote:

That's what it says in the DSM-IV. The whole book is full of vague terms
that are open to abuse by greedy clinicians. The patient should be wary and
know that there are people out there (like me) who have sympathy for who
they are, and who they *know* they are, and not for what label they were
diagnosed with.