Person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizophrenic

I read far too much psychiatric literature for a sane person. I often see "schizophrenic" as a term to call a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The psychiatric language is considered to be highly stigmatic because the term is a noun.

In my opinion it is a noun and for two reasons. I'm a depressive or a manic depressive or a schizoaffective (I don't know the noun for this) or a dual diagnosisive  (or this) or a mixed affective (or this). They couldn't determine my type but many psychiatrists have applied a label to my identity and personality and individuality. There are genetic theories that suppose my type is a genetic 'problem' that with the 'right' environmental factors can create a mentally ill person like me. The genetic theories and arguments used to rationalise homosexuality as a mental illness were turned back on themselves by homosexuality campaigners who used them to say that homosexuals were a valid part of the human race because of the genetic evidence.

The label of mental illness allows doctors to take away part of me, to change me into an automaton that isn't unwanted by society. It is to change the type of human I am into the type that is acceptable to society at the time.

It takes mad pride to say society is wrong to outcast my type, label us as ill and take away that which is still an essential part of the human condition: the symptoms of mental illness. It takes a sense of confidence in my very being to read the psychiatric literature that only seeks to look at what is wrong with my type and other types of human being, but it is an understanding tempered with the acknowledgment that in many people's eyes I'm an unwanted piece of shit.

(
A little history
Psychiatry was borne to help the outcast. Foucault explains this stuff better than I. Society has dealt with the mentally ill in different ways over time. During the change to the Industrial Age the mad became outcasts (without religion to contextualise their experience) and the idea of idiocy was created. They were the ones that did not have a perceived value in the new modality of civilisation. The creation of a massive asylum system, many of which were old leper houses, confined and saved the mad - an act of great compassion but one that hid madness from society and redoubled the idea of illness and unwantedness. The advent of psychiatric medication began the first step to rectifying that error in the development of a society full of and accepting of all types of human being. Anti-stigma programmes, the Disability Discrimination Act and other methods are continuing the change to an equal and diverse society.
)

(
A little on psychogenetics and more on the idea of types of human beings
My genetic arguments are not established by the evidence at the moment. There is no strong evidence at present for the idea of genetic types based on the current diagnostic system, i.e. the evidence shows limited associations for specific disorders linked to gene polymorphisms and evidence is showing disorders such as bipolar and schizophrenia may come from the same genetic route.

"Schizotaxia" is a term coined by Meehl in the 20th century to describe what he/she saw as a genetic state which environmental factors interplay upon to produce a human on the schizophrenia spectrum.Schizophrenia, schizoptypal personality disorder or schizotypy. None of these disorders or non-pathological states can be exist in an individual who is not a schizotaxic.
)

(
The greatest challenge in ethical application of psychogenetics
Only schizotaxics can become schizophrenics. One day people may be able to check for this type of human through genetic screening. The fear of schizophrenia would mean many parents would opt to screen for this. Given the treatment of schizophrenia in the past, certainly by the likes of Hitler (btw - I acknowledge I'm veering into an ad hominem argument against screening for mental illness by dropping Hitler's name in), policy makers may also use genetic evidence to remove the mentally ill. In my opinion it would still not stop us existing because when the screen programs stopped when they eventually remove my genetic type the chaos factor of evolution will recreate the type in the gene pool).

In so doing they are murdering a type of human being., a type that may be undesireable just like homosexuals were in the early 20th century. It may be one of the greatest moral challenges in the 21st century and beyond to never remove a genetic type of human being because at the time they are born there exists a social disability and stigma. Environmental factors are within the scope of change in a society that wants to remove my type and the safety of the diversity of the gene pool is assured.
)

(
Why it will reduce the capital of civilisation to remove the mentally ill through genetic screening
In my personal opinion the change from the Industrial Age to the Information Age (or whatever the third age of civilisation will be called in the future) means the schizotaxic type - the fundamental genetic type that can become a schizophrenic or not - may be more valued. The new age of society will be different from the one-size-fits-all approach to the structures in workplaces and other constructs of human cohesion. Production will move from mass to bespoke. Ideas and creativity are the new capital, not manufacturing capability. (The easiest example of the difference is Ford in the 20th century compared to Microsoft or Google in the 21st)
Art will truly take it's place as a valuable commodity for everyone.
)