My beef with the DSM is that each condition is defined primarily by symptoms or behaviors--and to make it worse, their understanding of the symptoms seems kind of sketchy at times. (Compare the way it's often done for non-psychiatric conditions: Your doctor might diagnose/treat you based purely on symptoms, but a more objective definition of the disease exists. This matters for treatment research and for situations where the symptom-based diagnosis is more complicated.) But, the DSM5 didn't make it any worse than the DSM4, and the ICD, which is used in other parts of the world, has the same problem.

I've heard the National Institute of Mental Health is working on their own system, which will be based on biomarkers, but it won't be ready for like ten years. (Well, it was announce around the time the DSM5 came out, so maybe we're down to seven years now.)

Anyhow, if anyone's interested in knowing the specifics of each condition (for curiosity or for self-diagnostic purposes), both the PsychCentral main site and Wikipedia are a convenient places to start, especially for the more well-known conditions. They don't generally have the full DSM text because it's copyrighted. However, sometimes you can do an internet search of a condition name followed by "dsm5 criteria" to find quoted text.

I'm guessing you could find the DSM5 in a library too, but I haven't tried. It costs like $200 if you want to buy it.

Keep in mind, the DSM is for psychiatry (it's published by the American Psychiatric Association) and psychiatry is a medical specialty focusing on mental illness, and mental illnesses are "health conditions involving changes in thinking, emotion or behavior (or a combination of these)." (That is the definition of mental illness off the APA website, but other sources should agree with them. Actually, I liked Wikipedia's "abnormalities related to mood, behaviour, cognition, and perceptions.")

So neurocognitive problems and withdrawal symptoms make sense to be considered mental illness/psychiatric. Probably even more so than some other things that are sometimes considered psychiatric, e.g. being sad because sad things have happened.

I was surprised to see the apnea/hyponea conditions too, but I looked them up, and it seems like those terms refer more to the psychiatric problems caused by the lack of sleep, not the physical problems which cause the lack of sleep. I guess the circadian rhythm stuff makes sense--if it's not psychiatric, what is it?

"Lack of discipline and boundaries" isn't going to cause a severe problem like Oppositional Defiant Disorder, unless maybe we're talking the kind of terrible parenting that can typically cause a variety of psychiatric disorders.

It does sound a lot like a mood disorder.

The diagnostic criteria for those conditions entails way more than just having weird tastes. Heck, you said yourself "consenting adults" and "in their bedrooms" but Voyeuristic Disorder specifically involves spying on unsuspecting people and Exhibitionistic Disorder involves exposing one's own sexual body parts to non-consenting people.

All the paraphilic disorders in the DSM-5 have a criteria of "a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others." (This is actually an improvement over the previous DSMs which didn't make a clear distinction.) Even if someone has some weird taste/paraphilia which theoretically entails a lack of consent, that doesn't automatically mean they go around harming people. That's true of pedophilia too.

I think this pretty well illustrates where the general anti-psychiatry argument of pathologizing normal things comes from... People see a diagnostic label like "[perfectly normal thing or quality] Disorder" and for some reason assume psychiatrists are declaring that perfectly normal thing/quality to be a disorder, but they are actually identifying a miserable and potentially life-ruining problem which relates to that normal thing/quality.

There's not much they can do with the names to prevent this problem. One of my diagnoses has a name like "[normal]-Deficit/Hyper[normal] Disorder"--the bad parts in that name outnumber the normal parts three to two--and I still see people thinking it refers to something normal! (I actually dislike the name of ADHD because I feel it's too specific, and likewise the criteria is too narrow, but even if they came up with a name/criteria I liked better, I'm sure it would still have this issue. That, or people wouldn't understand it at all.)

Of course, I'm not saying the APA is immune to accidentally pathologizing normal things due to cultural bias (e.g. homosexuality used to be listed until one of the revisions of the DSM2), but I think it's a much smaller problem than people make it out to be, especially since they specify impairment/distress/etc in the criteria of most things. Even if they mistakenly believe XYZ is bad, you probably won't meet their criteria for XYZ disorder unless XYZ is actually causing some problems. (Of course, a clinician misdiagnosing you with XYZ Disorder because they've personally decided it's a problem is still an issue.)

If think, due to this crappy diagnostic system, people should definitely avoid conflating the diagnostic label with the underlying problem. (If that's what you're saying, I agree with you, but your first post wasn't following that idea.)

For the DSM4-to-DSM5 changes being discussed, they aren't really adding or removing disorders, so much as renaming or recategorizing things. Like, if you used to have "Bipolar Disorder Not Otherwise Specified," you now have "Other Specified Bipolar and Related Disorder" (or possibly one of the other more-specific ones). No one should be looking at that situation and concluding that the nature of your mental health has changed.

My psychiatrist gave me two simultaneous diagnoses for my depression. I only have one depression, as far as I know, but there weren't any diagnostic labels that fully encompassed how it manifests in my case, and I met the criteria for two conditions, so I got both. I guess that's how medical coding works in general, though? Like, I got my records from my PCP, and I saw that there were very frequently things like this:
ASSESSMENT:
719.47 Right Ankle Pain
729.5 Right Foot Pain
845.09 Right Ankle sprain
(In this example, I only had one injury.)

Non-psychiatric diseases are sometimes newly discovered, renamed, or re-categorized, and no one thinks those are fake. (Okay, sometimes people do think they are fake... but can we agree that those people are dumb?)

Acute viral nasopharyngitis (AKA nasopharyngitis AKA viral rhinitis AKA rhinopharyngitis AKA common cold) was described in some documents created in 1550 BC, it was named "cold" in the 16th Century AD, and the actual rhinovirus wasn't discovered until I think the 1900's. Does that mean the common cold doesn't exist?

There have been some news articles declaring a "new" disease called "bagpipe lung," but it's actually a new name for hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which is not new. The patient's exposure to the antigen that causes the condition usually has something to do with their hobby or occupation, so it has all kinds of dumb names like bird fancier's lung, hot tub lung, Maple bark disease, sequoiosis, bagassosis, and detergent worker's disease.

Crossing borders might cause doctors to use a different name for your condition, but even if they call it the same thing in words, they will have a different numerical code for it if they are using a different system.