I rejected psychiatric drugs after experiencing their harmful effects. Luckily, I took them for only a week or so. Simply put, I rejected it because it made me feel terrible, nothing more than that. I agree with your focus on the importance of defining things before we have discussions about them. However, I don’t think the issue of normality is relevant. This is because it is an arbitrary judgment that is ultimately based on moral ideas of right/wrong and good/bad. So unless we want the mental health professions to become moral arbiters, I’d steer clear. Yes, we can emotionally harm with words, especially if we are spreading falsehoods, but even when we don’t realize we’re harming. That’s why it is essential to value the experience of the person being helped – whether they find it useful or harmful. I disagree that the atheist example is a straw man argument. It shows that despite one’s most significant and impactful beliefs and perspectives, one still has the ability to do things contrary to those beliefs and perspectives. Let’s dispense with calling these problems “bipolar” or “depression.” This will help in discussing them as those labels distract us from what we’re talking about. There are real emotional difficulties and they range in terms of their intensity. So, someone can be sad and then another can be extremely sad (from their point of view). The latter would be far more difficult to tolerate, obviously, by definition. How one responds to these emotions is the key. The extremely sad person might tolerate the feelings and get out of bed, while the less sad person might stay in bed, even though on average we would assume more sadness results in more attempts to shut down.