We are in agreement about opposing antipsychiatry and being glad services exist. My intent was to convey that psychiatric reform is a legitimate endeavor, so that more people can access therapy and medication that would help them while also being legally protected from systemic abuse that can make their problems even worse. Hence my first comment on material changes and how that can mean many things. I do truly mean it that I am glad the medical system has helped you and I wish you the best.

I did not mean to make assumptions about your experience and I apologize that it came across that way. Based on what you post about how psychiatry has been helpful to you, I assumed your /overall/ experience was positive and that you are glad you engaged with these services. For some people, their overall experience was negative. Also, yes, you are right that this is humans hurting humans, but power inequality and the inadequacy of legal protections for patients raise the potential for abuse.

I think we are largely on the same page. My issue is with this black-and-white view where either psychiatry in its current form is flawless, sacrosanct, and incontrovertible, or else it only inflicts harm and should be eradicated. And it often seems like anyone who objects to the first view is assumed to hold the second, when really either view is grossly unscientific and ignores material harm.

There are legitimate issues with forced treatment being applied with unnecessary force, doctors not listening to people about side effects, medication risks being inadequately explained. Again, it's counterproductive to align oneself with the antipsychiatry movement when critiquing those, but health care reform is a reasonable topic of discussion and not inherently reactionary. I am truly glad your experience has been helpful but people can suffer severe harm from irresponsible practitioners.

I think part of the issue is that "anti psychiatry" covers a lot of ground, from right wingers who want to gut health services in favor of pseudoscience to left wingers who want more emphasis on informed consent over forced treatment. That ambiguity makes it imo a counterproductive way to self-identify, though I don't think the latter approaches are necessarily wrong. Or at least, they identify real problems worth discussion, rather than making up ableist nonsense like the first category.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I do think that things like medication, access to therapy, and being believed can all fall under the umbrella of material changes that can help people.

That post about self injury and institutionalizations is sticking with me because I think it illustrates one of the potential issues with an overly narrow trauma model of mental health.