What you're talking about in this thread doesn't translate to applying the model "without nuance", but to wrongly apply the model or to not apply the model at all (since the model is not followed).
That's why I think your first post is wrong; the disease model does not claim that deviancy == illness. Rather, it claims that the identified problematic behavior is a result of a chemical/biological issue, and doesn't deal with definition of problems at all.
Also worth noting is that the purely biologic view isn't really en vogue any more. AFAIK, the biopsychosocial model is more popular.
In practice, it is valuable to view mental disorders as (i.e. not claim that they are) illnesses, one of the reasons for which you touch upon in your original post.
I have of course heard arguments like Hallowell's before, and I don't think that they're entirely unreasonable, although the gist of them can be applied to psychiatric diagnoses in general, seeing that all symptoms and traits can be said to exist on a scale/spectrum/continuum. Most literature I've seen readily acknowledges this (and notes pitfalls of other kinds, like being somewhat based on social norms). This is the one of the nuances I've previously alluded to.
As I think is quite clear from our exchange, positions like these are not the ones i disagree with, nor the ones I refer to as conspiratorial – that would be those that actually posit conspiratorial "theories", e.g. willful persecution of those outside the "normal" by practitioners, the powers that be, etc.
I'll refrain from commenting on your rude sarcasm and unreasonable assumptions, but know that cherry picking a source and appealing to its authority doesn't make for a convincing (nor logical) argument.
I'm also familiar with medicalization of deviance, though I don't see how this pertains to the disease model, as this kind of social control is possible (and has been performed) via a plethora of means.
P.S. Just came across an editorial [0] that deals with some of this that might be of interest.
And I certainly don't go attacking straw men before you've even had a chance to answer accusations (as in the rude sarcasm part).
I also note that you have yet to back up your original assertion that the disease model "posits one notion of normal and then divides everything into "normal therefore fine" or "different, therefore broken"', which is hardly surprising, as it doesn't deal with this definition at all.
Take care.
If you would like a better source, take a look at Hallowell's work. His basic take is that ADHD is not a disease, but a trait:
http://www.drhallowell.com/add-adhd/
Of course, he's only a psychiatrist who specializes in ADHD and has written a half-dozen books on the topic, so I'm sure he's just lacking your subtle understanding of the perfection of the disease model. And probably a conspiracy theorist too; there are so many of those on the Harvard Medical School faculty.
And if you'd like more on how the disease model is misused, start with the literature on the medicalization of deviance:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=medicalization+of+devia...