Having Pets Instead of Children Should Be Considered A Psychiatric Disorder

Fabulous. This should be a fun debate!1- Our favorite author begins by likening a cat or dog that has lost their litter and projects this loss onto a nonliving object to a human who does not want children. This is false equivalence, not only is the human brain significantly more complex than a dog/cat brain, but also a human who does not want children did not experience such a loss.2- The author disdainfully recounts tails (pardon the pun) of millenials referring to their fur babies as their children, their girls/boys/babies/xyz affectionate term as if it were disgusting to refer to anyone but children as such. The claim is ridiculous, seeing as in virtually any setting thhat involves mixed ages, I've called, been called, or have otherwise overheard people refer to another person who is less than three months younger than them their "daughter." Old guy friends have called me "mom," my band of seventh graders in eigth grade were all my children, and we even had elaborate family trees.This is completely normal. Taking on positions and names like these indicates that one person is guiding, teaching, and taking care of another. Likewise, it's completely normal for you to refer to an animal you potentially raised from infancy as your baby. Of course they were your baby, you might have bottle fed them, you cuddled them, you fed them, you loved them. I refer to my clumsy older cat as "my son" because everyone can acknowledge that I am not capable of birthing a cat, but I loved him and raised him (...and also referenced Hamilton).The author then refers to a Christian musician, most likely the authority on psychology as well, who was eavesdropping on a FaceTime conversation with two pet parents and their dog. This is a bit overboard in my opinion, but I would probably enjoy seeing my pets if I were on an extended vacation. I did raise them.Morris closes the section with with "How much embarrassment must it bring those “grandparents” to participate in such a call? How badly must they want real grandchildren, instead of pet-sitting an attention-smothered dog? How much grief must they feel watching their child waste her parental instincts on an animal while they’re forced to play along in the couple’s sick and disturbing charade?"This is a little much. Most baby boomers will tell you upfront if they don't want to participate in something they find embarrassing. If they were petsitting, it was no feathers from their wings if the pet parents wanted to FaceTime. It's not a complex thing to do. The author also wonders woefully for the grandparents themselves, wondering what kind of selfish grief they're experiencing. Why is this at all relevant? Isn't it incredibly selfish to grieve over something someone doesn't want to give you?For the record, they're not participating in the charade. Everyone seems to know that people don't actually think their pets are their literal children aside from the author.3- Morris brings up some rather odd toys to use with your pet. One included is a rubber tongue to help you groom your cat. Again, I agree that this is a little much, but this does not represent most pet parents. About a third of Americans have cats, but I have yet to see a rubber tongue in any household [1].He then alleges that pets are "practice babies" and millenials will, seeing the "nightmare" pets can be, go on to never have kids. This claim lacks a source, and considering untrained animals behave in such a manner and Gen-Xers have proven not to be the best parents, I can see how the millenials' logic follows. To which my reply is: oh.. no? 4- This brings me to my next point. He condescendingly says that millenials, compared to baby boomers, have significantly less cars or houses or jobs (please examine the economy), but we do overshadow the baby boomers in one subject: pets.Again: oh.. no?He then attempts to attack the point that many childless pet parents make: how expensive a child is. According to babycenter, raising a child from birth to 18 plus college is around $320,000 [2]. He insists that it's worth it, though I think you should have to make a certain wage to even think about having a child."But perhaps because many of them were pampered, millennials have come away with the distinct impression that raising children is a vocation reserved for those with Batman’s bank account. It’s not." Perhaps this figure is a little exponential, but shouldn't the ability to raise children be dependent on your ability to provide for yourself? Shouldn't you make enough to allow your child to be comfortable and not be weighed down by the stressors of financials?5- The author snubs those who rescue animals as if they are at the height of self indulgence by doing so. Really? Saving an animal from a certain death in a kill shelter isn't a rescue? Agreeing to take care of an animal for the rest of its life isn't a rescue? Saying that you hereby will take care of its satiety, hydration, health, entertainment, and comfort isn't rescuing? Alright, what is, then?6- Not referring to the article this time, this brings me to my final point. I'll bring out my handy dandy Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders and try to find a place for this supposed psychiatric disorder. A man who has decided that something should be a mental disorder should haave some psychological experience, so this should be easy, right?The table of contents is a little long, so let's just skim through. Neurodevelopmental? No, this refers to intelligence disorders and autism. Schizophrenia spectrum? No. Bipolar? No. Depressive? No. Anxiety? No. Obsessive-Compulsive? No. Trauma/Stressor? No. Dissociative? No. Somatic Symptom? No. Feeding/Eating? No. Elimination? No. Sleep-Wake? No. Sexual? No. Gender Dysphoria? No. Disruptive, Impulse Control, Conduct? No. Substance-Related? No. Neurocognitive? (Delirium, Amnesia, etc). No. Personality? Probably not. Paraphilic? Definitely not.Okay, so it doesn't fit into any normal category.But it's still psychiatric, right? That falls in the medical side of psychology, so we treat it with medications.Like... what.Antidepressants aren't going to help. Antipsychotics won't help.There is no way this can be a psychiatric disorder. There is no logical place for it, and there is no logical treatment for it.[1] http://www.gallup.com...[2] https://www.babycenter.com...