To think psychiatry is misogynistic?

[tvde]

I have been reading works of feminist psychologists such as Jess Taylor and critical works of people such as Joanna moncrieff.

the argument is:

• Trauma responses to abuse are normal, rational, and proportionate to what someone has experienced.
• What is often labelled as “mental illness” can actually be understandable reactions to violence and oppression.
• The mental health system has a history of pathologising women’s responses, especially after abuse, instead of addressing the trauma itself.
• This can become a form of victim blaming, where women are judged for their reactions (e.g. being “too emotional,” “unstable,” or “making bad choices”).
• These patterns are shaped by broader systems like patriarchy and racism, which influence how people are diagnosed and treated.
• Common narratives shift responsibility away from perpetrators and subtly place it on victims (e.g. questioning behaviour, choices, or credibility).
• Widespread rape myths reinforce this—such as believing it’s not “real” rape without physical resistance or injuries, or that men “didn’t mean to.”
• theyre given drugs which don’t actually have good success rates (see moncrieff)

I see this countless times working with women and child victims.
Have you experienced this to?

Yes but she’s getting you to engage with this, which is great.
why do you disagree with her so strongly? What evidence do you have that she’s wrong?

'This woman who spouts dangerous nonsense is great because you're engaging with the topic at hand' - would you say the same about flat earthers in a conversation about physics?

The near total acceptance of trans ideology tells you everything you need to know. Only men know who to woman properly.

Omg yes. I used to be a teacher. With an a level class this would be a great hook!

Well if someone presented as depressed as they couldn’t pay the bills no one is going to suggest they have a mental illness . I mean they are going to be seeing nurses and supper workers who feel the same. In fact if that is what someone presented with they probably wouldn’t even get into mental health services.

we can’t change the soil for people. we can’t change social problems . So we concentrate on what can change and that is ourselves and our behaviour. Therapy is usually about helping people to reframe how they see things and change their behaviour.

Disorder doesn’t mean ‘bad’ FFS. It means disruption. In the context of MH, the word disorder means a disruption to the brains way of working that differs from what might be seen a more typical in the general population. The disruption is also severe enough to be causing difficulty and distress to the person.

I have personality disorder. It doesn’t mean my personality is ‘bad’. It means the development of my personality (the way I think, feel and behave) has been massively disrupted due to childhood trauma, and that disruption has been severe enough to become enduring and last into adulthood.

If you want to think of it as ‘bad’ then that’s on you.

And this narrative of ‘it’s normal response to trauma’ - never seems to extend to the logical conclusion that yes, severe trauma, especially trauma in childhood, may well lead to mental health difficulties in adulthood. Why is that so unacceptable to think or say?!

And this is helpful in some cases and probably retraumatising in others? An abused child needs to be safe before they will start changing their viewpoint. Is this the same in adult practise?

She believes that most psychiatric diagnoses are fake and made up to oppress women and teaches women they should come off medication and engage with her 'therapeutic' teachings to recover from 'trauma' which she believes is the root of all mental ill health. She has no credentials to be offering therapy (which she calls 'coaching') or teaching others how to offer therapy (which she is trying to do by selling courses and materials for thousands) - she calls herself a psychologist but she's never practiced because she doesn't have the requisite qualifications. Her 'evidence' is flawed, easily debunked and leads to teaching that harms women. There is nothing positive about what she's doing because her actions have negative real world consequences for women who are coming off medication that they need to be stable, to safely parent their children etc. She teaches that all professional institutions are misogynistic including social work and the family court and tells women to approach family court proceedings from a position that genuinely causes them harm. I don't buy this line that because she makes people talk that's automatically a good thing, that's facetious and shallow.

It’s not that’s kind of my point. Of course if you were severely abused you’d have issues. Do we need to say that’s a you problem? Or can we be compassionate and say yes that’s a pretty normal response to being abused?

If you’re telling people ‘that’s a you problem’ then that’s a problem with YOU, not the concept of mental illness.

But the psychiatrist can't change the past, no-one can. They also are not in a professional position to offer any opinion on your maternity care - they are not specialists in that area and so can't say if your care was incompetent or if you were simply unlucky and had complications which were not preventable.

If you have a bathroom put in by plumber A and later have to get plumber B in to fix it - well plumber B can tell that A was a cowboy and it needs fixing, but they can't change the past. Plumber B needs to work with what's there and do what they can to fix it. Having a long discussion about plumber A doesn't change the work that needs done now. The psychiatrist can't even tell you the maternity team were cowboys - firstly they don't have the obstetric knowledge to know that, and secondly that's unprofessional.

Yes this is problematic and I thank you for highlighting this.
but I do agree with the main principles - that most mental health diagnoses do pathologise quite normal trauma responses. And instead of looking at other options, medication has become a de facto response and it does have long term harmful side effects that aren’t talked about enough.

Language has an impact on the person. Just changing the name can make a world of difference. Look at the autistic community and how they speak. It’s a huge issue

And telling someone in acute distress that it’s normal can be equally harmful - it’s minimising and dismissive of the pain they are in and implies there’s no help needed as it’s all ‘normal’.

It’s a sure fire pathway to reducing access to services for traumatised people be overstretching the ‘normalising’ narrative as a way to avoid the uncomfortable truth that the stigma towards Mental Illness caused by trauma lies in the eye of the beholder.

do you really think that people who work in mental health don’t know this?

Im not sure you understand me. im not saying this to minimise harm. I’m saying this to validate their distress. That anyone would have the same response. That they are deserving and worthy of support regardless of their reaction. Do you see what I’m trying to say?

I think some do. Some unfortunately don’t. It’s a very mixed bag unfortunately

Changing the name does NOT remove the stigma - the stigma moves with the new name. A good case in point is BPD - EUPD - CPTSD. C-PTSDis not personality disorder but a high comorbidity rate has meant it has become a euphemism for it - a more socially acceptable name - but the stigma remains.

Changing the name does nothing.

What if we called it abused person syndrome? Do you think the same would keep happening? Do you think that’s because it predominantly impacts women or because of the stigma surrounding mental health in society?

He was the first person to publicly recognise that sexual abuse of girls and women caused trauma (different wording was used). Although he altered his theories because men weren't happy to hear it was their fault.

I have a lot of experience of working in mental health but predominantly with abused children. I have been through the system myself too as a victim of abuse. So I’ve seen both sides. It was enlightening to see how the system you so strongly believed in lets you down when you need it. You aren’t engaging with my questions. You can’t just call me naive because I won’t automatically agree with you.

If people are too distressed then they can not engage in psychological treatment. They need stabilising work first.

are you trying to say that behaviour shouldn’t be a barrier to services because the behaviour comes from trauma?

Intensive trauma focused treatment - by which I assume you mean a long series of one-to-one talking therapy sessions, is far more expensive.
So both male and female patients will be given drugs, and possibly a quick six weeks of CBT, because it is cheaper.

Never mistake neoliberal capitalism for patriarchy.
They may look the same from the perspective of a woman, but they are hugely different things from the perspective of a man.

So do Andrew Tate or Nigel Farage. You can 'debate' anything you like with whoever you like but it doesn't mean it's not a load of bollocks.