>

Physical disadvantages are not analogous to non-physical properties, states, or behaviors. This is illustrated in countless ways, one being the fact that there is no objective test for any mental “disorder”. On the other hand, we can measure insulin products, beats per minute, or if your left arm can catch a ball. 
Additionally, changing your body chemistry to conform to accepted norms is not the same as wearing a prosthetic. Coercive psychiatry is far, far different from physical disability.
By your logic, countries other than 'the west' could just as easily put out their own DSM equivalent with biases based on their culture and situation. Have they? >

Depends on how expensive their militaries are, no?
(The DSM started as a manual created by the U.S. military: shocker!) >

Is the only way you could make something like the DSM through the military? No, of course not. >

I’m sorry but I’m not going to explain how disincentivizing it is to produce a competing system of control when an effective one already exists. >

You keep arguing at right angles to your previous arguments. How does 'this is an effective system of control' argue against 'you can make DSM-equivalents through the civilian sector'? How does your first comment argue against the idea of people making their own DSM if cultural bias is the problem? >

what is an example of a "culture-bound" disease from the DSM, which is exemplifies that lack of objectivity that you are talking about? >

Koro comes to mind. But again, I argue that all mental “disorders” are culture-bound. The problem is that psychiatry as “we” generally know is hegemonic. >

suppose somebody is depressed in that they lack the motivation to perform basic self care on themselves or if they are depressed in the sense that they want to kill themselves.
In some sense, everything is subjective.  You could say cancer is not a diseases, it is Gods will that your cells replication process goes amuck or that the common cold builds character and makes you stronger and thus it is a healthy part of human development.
but unless you take subjectivity that far and say all diseases are subject, it seems pretty clear that these forms of depression are bad. >

The problem is that you can hold a tumor. You can’t hold depression, nor can you even hold a positive depression test result in your hand. Depression is defined as a set of criteria, not something you can measure or biopsy or see. Sure, you can see the “effects” of “depression” like lack of self-care, but again, these are culture-bound signposts. Self-care is a trendy term produced by culture, not something meaningful or even sensical in the context of diagnosis. 
The Dagara for instance stop practicing self-care (bathing, changing clothes) when they are near death. It’s viewed as a dress rehearsal for dying.
The same applies to suicidal ideation: learned, cultural, and bound to our expectations about what it means to live a meaningful life. Suicidal feelings are also bound to how one expects themselves to be treated by others based on their having aforementioned suicidal thoughts, feelings, etc. Just because you are depressed doesn’t mean you are depressed without concern for others or yourself (side bar: you don’t “have” depression; you don’t have it in a vacuum; you are interdependent and linked to everything around you; because of this, “you” don’t “have” depression anymore than your toxic mother does). The pattern of depression implies that you are needing help from your surroundings, your community, your family, because you are typically, metaphorically, and literally asking for help. It is learned and is an aggressive germ that spreads easily. >

I mean, you can't literally hold depression, but there are patterns of brain activity, changes in brain structure and biochemistry that can be found in patients suffering from major depressive disorders. Yes, depression does literally change your brain, it's not just another typical feeling. >

The standard for assessing psychological conditions in the DSM is based on life in a contemporary capitalist society, this is true.  People need to be mentally capable of certain basic things and we consider a "disorder" to occur when those capabilities are impeded psychologically.  Is it absolutely objective?  No.  Is it useful in nearly every developed country in the world?  Yes. >

To this I would say that utility and functionality are the insidious engine of psychiatry. Much of the DSM hinges on a person’s ability to work and produce for the state. Linear, goal-oriented thinking are hallmarks of whether a person is “healthy” or not. For these reasons, I think psychiatry is, as a whole, maladaptive, unsustainable, and—obviously—capitalist. It seeks to exploit, not to heal. If “healing” these “diseases” required reductions in productivity, we would have a radically different definition of healing. >

This is like saying that since limbs are necessary for work, diagnosing people with less than four limbs as "disabled" and trying to "treat" the person by providing therapy or prosthetics is exploitative.
At some point you have to realize that just because something aligns with capitalism does not make it wrong or bad.