I'll add, as an afterthought (but really just a more concise summary), re: political freedom
Politics is an arbitrary, human invented system. Political freedom is the freedom to move within that system's arbitrary set of rules (rules established and enforced by [some force]). Freedom to move within a set of arbitrary rules is not freedom, it's a game. Monopoly and Chess are at least fun and don't result in mass exploitation of everyone not granted those freedoms to play the game.
Countries that bow to Charles only have an illusion of freedom. They are allowed to go about their business and generally say what they want as long as they don't go outside of arbitrary lines. That's not freedom. Freedom is the ability to do or say things that others may disagree with, or that may be offensive to others, short of causing actual harm (not hurt feelings).
Modern feminism isn't about empowering women which was always bullshit anyway. It took men thousands of years to gain political freedom, women achieved it in a relative eyeblink afterward, thanks to men. If the patriarchy were real, women wouldn't have political freedom.
K, a lot to unpack here, but this especially stands out. Do you think politics, and thus political freedom, are innate, universal things beyond all human conception? Conversely, do you think every human, since the very first (itself an abstract concept, but I digress) have had a concept of politics? Or do you think "politics" itself is a human concept, likely arising to address some sense of societal structure, as a hierarchy, that has been developed (evolved, indoctrinated, etc...) over time? If it is a human inventions, which humans invented it and why? If "for thousands of years" the invention we call politics has been propagated by primarily men (not exclusively, cultures have varied), then would this not be accurately conceptualized as "patriarchy"? If the patriarchy weren't real, women would not have been excluded from, or limited within, the artifice (concept, whatever) of politics; if politics were not conceptualized, "political freedom" would be nonsense word salad.
The very concept of politics exists because humans invented it; political freedom (and oppression) exist because humans invented it and conceptualized - and thus established it relating to human interaction within society - to the benefit of some at the expense of others. If this was in some facility (not needing to be absolute, but in general) to the benefit, or narrative, of men, then that could accurately be called a "patriarchy". If you assert gender (or sex) is a real dichotomy, and if you acknowledge that dichotomy has been unequally manifest within the concept of politics ("it took men thousands of years to gain political freedom" coming before the "blink of an eye" women gained it), then you acknowledge patriarchy, within a political context, is real. Logic. You are literally contradicting your own argument.
That is to say if "politics" exists as a concept, it is a human invention; if this invention has historically favored men (by gaining political freedom first), who then used that concept to in some limit such freedoms (themselves arbitrary and only existing within that man-made concept) of women, that is very literally what the word "patriarchy" is used to describe. You can argue "patriarchy" is an inefficient word to describe the concept, but you can also argue "apple" is an inefficient word to describe its concwpt; neither changes the fact it is these very ideas people understand those words to *mean* (whether you personally agree with that meaning or not, others do enough for those words to have such a commonly understood meaning). The above looks like an attempt at gaslighting and mansplaining politics.
Men did not gain "political freedom" from some abstract concept that humans have spent thousands of years divining; men gained political freedom (and I'd argue the concept of politics is a BS arbitrary power structure itself, and that no one - by gender lines, especially - actually has absolute political freedom within that concept); men gained political freedom via interaction within the arbitrary power structures created by men with the narrative of power belonging to men over women (see: "patriarchy"). You're begging the question and drawing arbitrary lines, same as the other person.
As for the rest... "science", too, is an arbitrary (and thus limited, and limiting) concept that originated only a few centuries ago (blip in the scope of humanity) from older concepts, much as its pretty much inevitable that eventually a new concept will grow out of, to eventually replace, "science" as science becomes an archaic concept like alchemy. Science is the process of understanding the natural world. Generally speaking, we make observations and rationally attempt to explain them. In hard sciences like biology, chemistry, physics, every assertion is challenged and overthrowing the status quo brings incredible prestige, thus they produce observable and verifiable works. Soft sciences generally deal with behavior or interpretations of artifacts (sociology, anthropology, archeology, psychology), things that can't be quantified and those fields are ego driven and opposing the dominant mindset can have serious negative repercussions to those employed in that field. For example, for decades, anyone in anthro/archeo opposing the Leakeys might as well flush their degree. Those fields gradually add to our basket of knowledge in a slow and less methodical way and leaps forward usually come from the interaction with hard sciences.
As for the DSM... again, itself to document conceptualized pathologies originating in the 19th and 20th centuries, and a living document based on a behaviorist (again, concept, not absolute) perspective of the underlying causes of those pathologies. The DSM has been revised multiple times and will be again. With its next revision, for example autism and ADHD, will likely be broadened; this does not mean autism and ADHD (as neurotypes) will have changed, just that the understanding of them will have broadened (that is, with each revision its acknowledged the previous understanding was incomplete). Likewise, both are themselves words to conceptualize neurotypes that aren't fully understood. Prior to being defined (within this specific context), they still existed, but were conceptualized differently (see: changelings/fae, lol) based on the limited, epistemic understanding of those observing them. It's also well documented, even within empirical research, that a clinicians own recognition of these things will vary by the clinicians own understanding, education, information (older clinicians tend to recognize them less thanyounger, as younger clinicians tend to have a more up to date/broadened understanding). I'd argue neurodivergent people understand, and are able to recognize, neurodivergence in others better than clinicians with outdated 40 year old understandings (clinicians, at least those who stay up to date on new research, progressively realize this, too, hence the DSM being continually revised... because science, as a concept, is not static but rather broadens with this little thing called research... an important part of science). To dismiss the self-experience of people the DSM tries to progressively define is counterproductive to the very concept of science, research, or the DSM itself (that is, if your and/or Maher's mentality/understanding were correct, these things likely never would've been defined, or the definitions still stuck in the understandings from 1940s eugenicists... your fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of science itself does not make for a sound argument here). The DSM does not diagnose people and again you are attempting to mansplain and gaslight. Not sure what it is exactly you believe to have achieved here.
Your post offers no compelling counterargument and is just an affirmation that you disagree with me but are unable to articulate exactly why.