DSM-5 is chugging along. The posting of the proposed changes on the DSM-5 Web site attracted over 10,000 comments and millions of hits with comments coming from professionals and the public worldwide. Currently Dr. David Kupfer, DSM-5 task force chair, and the work groups are reviewing the comments and preparing for field trials. This process is unprecedented in its transparency and openness. Consequently, we have spent a fair amount of time responding to critics—most outside the mental health arena. It has really struck me that our attempts over the years to make psychiatry accessible by using common English has some drawbacks. Everyone has emotions, and in combination with a superficial understanding of emotional processing in everyday life or the media with our intelligible descriptions, many lay persons think they understand psychiatry. Having been in the specialty for 40 years, I can say I am only part of the way there to understanding emotions and psychopathology. For others to trivialize what we do or the suffering of our patients is something we must fight against. One thing we ought to consider is using more technical language. Our cardiology colleagues don't talk about heart attacks but use the term myocardial infarction. Hematologists are not attacked for including leukemia in their nomenclature, and they wouldn't think of giving it up for "way too many white cells disorder" (WTMWCD)! Why shouldn't we follow their lead? To my view, bulimia would be a better term than binge eating disorder. The latter was attacked by a prominent psychiatric critic as suggesting he could be diagnosed with the disorder after a heavy Thanksgiving dinner. Our language should indicate the severity of the possible impairment. Similarly, temper dysregulation in children sounds too much like temper tantrums. They are not the same, but the use of the language is problematic. We need to be more serious about our terminology. In the end, we will get it right.