One may think that the concept of neurodiversity being a mainstream umbrella term seems revolutionary for those with varying types of brain-related disabilities that cause them to function and behave differently from their neurotypical peers. I once thought this, too. Today, I intend to share my opinions on why this is not the case.
Firstly, there is much debate on what exact disorders fall under the category within the neurodivergent categorisation. Some argue that even epilepsy and Down syndrome follow this categorisation. Down syndrome is a chromosomal mutation which causes both physical and mental deficits.
To state that it is a neurodivergent disorder ignores the fact that it is not strictly a brain-related issue and that these are simply symptoms of an easily detectable chromosomal malformation. Plus, epilepsy is a disorder marked by unusual electrical activity in the brain causing seizures. This begs the question as to how exact a definition this term actually is.
Not only is there a debate on its definition, there is a sizeable number of people who identify as neurodivergent but claim that they aren't disabled. Whether it's due to "self-diagnosis" or having low support needs, they think of themselves as inherently different from those with more support needs than they have.
They fail to realise that mild disabilities exist and that they don't get to have a special silver platter of normalcy for qualifying as high-functioning. Knowing how to survive within the confines of an ableist society doesn't make one NOT disabled. One needs to clinically struggle quite a bit to receive any type of diagnosis, whether mental or physical.
The lady who popularised the term called neurodivergent was an Australian sociologist named Judy Singer. She sought to popularise terminology that isn't deficit-based and embraces the diversity of human brains. The term and activism behind it are meant to spread the idea that there is no wrong way for a person's brain to be.
As a society, it seems that many have collectively agreed that it's okay to sugarcoat disabilities if it sounds inclusive on paper. There is a difference between accepting those with deficits and pretending as though they are simply quirky brain types and nothing more. These are genuine disabilities, not zodiac signs.
As a whole, communities of those with disorders are mostly represented by those least affected by them. While their representation is also important, this phenomenon creates a large breeding ground for types of oppression such as Asperger's supremacy. This is why one must be careful when creating political terms to describe a wide spectrum of vulnerable people. One just might accidentally alienate those who need the most support.
Individuals requiring a lighter level of support may sometimes claim that they aren't inherently disabled. They may also claim that deficit-based language is harmful, but whether or not they say it aloud, they could easily spot a more severely disabled person with more obvious day-to-day struggles. It's all about inclusion until people have to swallow the pill that they, in fact, have a disorder and that theirs is simply on the less severe end of the spectrum.
Another issue is when discussing the topic of neurodiversity, people often use this term to simply refer to someone with conditions such as autism or ADHD. While they, too, fit the definition of this word, they shouldn't be the only people who matter. There are even popular videos on websites such as TikTok containing content suggesting that neurodivergent people are better at spotting narcissists.
This further spreads the idea that only some people in this community really matter. By the very definition of the word, personality disorders also fall under the neurodivergent umbrella. Many folks demonise cluster B personality disorders because they view those with these conditions as inherently evil, intentionally malicious, or manipulative. This only further proves that many folks within this movement are performative activists.
If the neurodiversity movement is so heavily flawed, then what could be a possible proposed solution? Some folks are beginning to adopt a lesser-known term known as neurodisabled. The core tenets of the neurodisability movement are to spread the message that it's okay to admit that one has clinically significant deficits and that demonising the social model of a disability is a form of ableism in itself which excludes those with higher support needs.
Readers of this article may wonder what types of disabilities qualify for this newer umbrella term. The answer is that a neurodisability refers to any type of brain-related disorder that affects one's quality of life, regardless of its severity or origin. It does not strictly refer to disorders which affect how a person thinks or acts. For example, conditions such as visual snow syndrome and epilepsy both qualify under this definition.