I think you are fully capable of finding that definition yourself and correlating it with the definition. I'm not doing all your research for you.
I'm capable of googling yes, but my conclusion is that there is no useful definition of mental disorder or illness that is widely accepted. In fact the only official definitions exist to give the quacks which I previously mentioned plenty of room for arbitrage.
I responded to this thread by giving you a road map of how you could argue otherwise. It's not my research, my research was done long ago. It's your claim that contradicts my evaluation.
I might define a mental disorder as: A detrimental and persistent pattern of delusion in an awake and undrugged mind
So just to be clear, a mental disorder to you is:
A harmful and continuous pattern of a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, in a wake and undrugged mind.
Let me be crystal clear: That is not what a mental disorder is to me, that is a definition I would advance as the nearest useful and objectively evaluable definition which behaves most like how the general population of English speakers would use the word.
Since I know the public conception is vague and the academic definition is unbounded I wouldn't use the word "mental disorder" just hoping to be understood. Some numbskull would come along and say "well that's not in the DSM" or "this is in the DSM", I have no interest in participating in a system of definitions that route back to the arbitrary assertions of supposed authorities.
I have no interest for the same reason I don't argue with 40k players about whether space marines are really always males: The universe they made up is an invention, which means it may contain contradictions, and it flows from the assertions of a few people who may introduce contradictions.
If you want to use that definition, then for the purposes of this discussion we could use logic to see if transgenderism fits the definition.
1.) the undrugged mind assumes the premise that someone who is mentally ill is immediately not mentally ill if they are drugged. But you fail to assess the fact that the drugging may have been a cause of the mental illness.
By design, the general conception of mental disorder is something endemic to the mind; whereas the affects of drugs are considered an "outside poison". This is a practical distinction.
The solution to being drunk is clear, stop drinking. It requires no plumbing of the psychology. Now there is the idea of alcoholism as a mental disorder, but that is something that persists whether the person is sober or not. The sober alcoholic desires alcohol not because he is drunk.
The general conception is that the only way to treat a mental disorder is by some form of introspection or corrective drugs.
This would except most religions as most religions are not particularly detrimental, even when they are persistent and often delusional.
Well, using your definition, religion is not mentally ill, because not all religions are harmful, and they don't believe something against incontrovertible odds.
Often they do. The majority of religions (most thankfully now relegated to a few nutjobs) assert the validity of prophetic divination by proscribed ritual. The inability of shamans to make meaningful predictions is and always was obvious, however people were socially pressured into not pointing it out.
A few people probably believed them, and that was delusional given how many failed or super-vague predictions had to be ignored beforehand. Still, it doesn't fall into the general conception of mental illness.
