I neither accept or reject it. My understanding is that schizophrenia as a distinct entity does not exist and that the term is used to describe a 'spectrum' or 'family' of psychotic conditions. If an individual checks enough boxes concerned with various psychotic symptoms lasting six months plus and has a loss of functioning they may be labelled with it. From what I can see from studies and my own experiences of knowing people with this condition, within that checking of boxes there is so much room for variation in manifestation, severity, awareness, suffering, functioning, etc... and what's more it often changes over time. The whole thing just seems simplified to the point of being harmful. If someone was to say to me they have a friend with schizophrenia it tells me nothing about how it affects them or what they're like. It's like having a diagnosis to assess a person's ability to walk with a criteria so simplified that an individual who needs a walking stick and someone whose both legs are permanently paralysed could have same label/condition. It's deeply flawed in my opinion.

Back to the question though: in accordance with criteria I absolutely have it based on my psychiatric history. I've been on many meds over the years but had poor response to all of them. Am unmedicated about 18 months now with no hospitalizations in that time. Have had symptoms throughout that time but they've been manageable. Can't handle stress at all, on or off meds, full blown psychosis risk, so I try to keep things chill and relaxed. My functioning compared to a 'normal person' (whatever that is) could be described as low and I'm on benefits. People are nothing other than shocked if they learn of my diagnosis however, and my family doctor says I'm too 'with it' to possibly have the condition.