Read on Twitter
One thing that I think is sometimes not made clear in arguments in favor of anti-psychiatry, social models of disability, etc.: while certain theories do deny the existence of unconditionally sucky states of being, the core ideas don't rest on this premise.
The basic contention that "(mental) illness" is a disciplinary category constructed in service of interests which are alien to your own interests is in no way incompatible with the idea that your body and mind may spontaneously produce suffering such that you want relief.
Bringing these ideas together does not necessarily entail denying all need for medical intervention, or imagining that a society can exist which automatically, universally, and completely accommodates all disabilities such that they become total non-issues.
What it entails is that medicine be reframed to move away from concepts like "disorder" and "pathology" and instead center the patient's self-determination. It would become a practice in service of someone shaping themself and their environment according to their own desires.
In the small, this can sometimes mean a conversation which today revolves around saying "something's wrong with you" would instead revolve around asking "so you say you'd like to change something?", with the treatment being identical.
In the large, it means medical practitioners neither refuse you treatment nor pressure you into it, and it means those who rely on your labor do not press on you an obligation to keep your mind and body fit for _their_ use (rather than yours).
I think we should seriously consider the hypothesis that some things today called "disorders" _can_, in some cases, be total non-issues, and the hypothesis that other "disorders" may be produced socially.
But while these hypotheses might fail in some cases (and we can perhaps argue that some of the people opining about other people's conditions are being reckless and crass), the (imo more important) idea that pathology is not a natural category can still stand.
Tl;dr: "maybe let's not proclaim people to be fundamentally defective" is not the same as "you're fine, you don't need help"
It may be worth noting here that I am not standing in firm defense of some particular theory. I speak of "social models" (plural) and "anti-psychiatry" (a vague term not even adopted by its main heroes). I have never seen a comprehensive theory of health, illness, or disability.
What I think must not be discarded here is a very general viewpoint, which recognizes that social construction and institutional power inform our understanding of what health is, and that therefore radical critiques are necessary.
