Elsewhere, a psychiatrist opined that Trump can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. (Remember those couple of weeks when we were all terrified that Trump was going to start a nuclear war with North Korea, and then it dropped out of the news cycle completely?) Here's a letter to The New York Times from 35 mental health professionals concerned about Trump. Here's a former Harvard professor of psychiatry calling Trump a sociopath. Here's a psychiatrist saying, "Yes, we should be scared," because Trump is infantile, tyrannical, and incapable of love (and is erotically fixated on his daughter and has a fascination with feces, burn).
All of those stories went viral because they justify our immense loathing of Trump with some vague form of science. But one story that didn't get frantically shared was of a psychiatrist who helped write the DSM explaining how wildly irresponsible it is to diagnose someone you've never met with a mental illness. If you want to criticize Trump, criticize him for his cruel policies and awful behavior, not by using his body language to lump him in with people who are certifiably ill. It's no more conductive to stopping Trump's policies than calling him fat. It's just a thin veneer of credibility to make name-calling feel intellectual.
This isn't a new phenomenon, by the way. Psychiatrists have the "Goldwater rule," which states that it's unethical, and also idiotic, to diagnose a public figure they've never personally examined. That rule was put in place after the 1964 presidential election, when the magazine Fact polled psychiatrists about whether Barry Goldwater was fit for office, then ran a cover that screamed "1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater Is Psychologically Unfit To Be President!" Then Goldwater successfully sued Fact for libel, because the headline was about as accurate as publishing "1,189 Proctologists Say Goldwater Has Stick Up Ass!"