Validity without legitimacy? Reconsidering the diagnostic defence of borderline personality disorder: Response to Ruffalo, 2026

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy View at publisher

Abstract

Ruffalo argues that borderline personality disorder (BPD) meets Robins and Guze criteria for diagnostic validity and should be retained as a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis. This response challenges that conclusion, arguing that mid twentieth century biomedical validation models are inadequate for evaluating a construct that regulates identity, relationality, and social deviance. Although BPD may satisfy traditional validators, this does not establish epistemic soundness, ethical defensibility, or clinical legitimacy. Drawing on feminist, decolonial, neurodiversity, and lived experience-led scholarship, this analysis highlights diagnostic circularity, structural harm, and the exclusion of lived experience evidence. Validity without legitimacy is insufficient for mental health care.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-05T02:00:03.366016+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0