This shift has been important when it comes to challenging deficit-based understandings of neurodivergence and promoting principles of respect, dignity, autonomy and belonging for neurodivergent people. Neurodiversity affirming practice encourages individuals, professionals and organisations to value neurodivergent differences and recognise them as a natural part of human diversity rather than viewing them as signs of an illness or disorder.  

While this represents significant progress and has led to an improvement in services, classrooms and workplaces especially in regards to more inclusive conversations, reduced stigma and improved practices, an important question remains: 

Is being neurodiversity affirming enough?

An individual or organisation may genuinely value neurodivergent people while still operating within environments, policies, practices and assumptions that are shaped by neuronormative expectations. Respecting differences does not automatically remove barriers, redistribute power or create meaningful access and participation.

This mirrors the same tensions and issues with moving from culturally aware to culturally responsive practice. Culturally responsive practice acknowledges that while awareness and appreciation of cultural diversity are important foundations, they are not sufficient on their own. It’s not just about being aware of or valuing differences but how to actively respond to it by challenging and transforming systems, addressing biases and attitudes and centering the lived experiences of marginalised communities.

If we apply this same logic to neurodiversity, we must recognise there is a further stage needed beyond awareness and affirming which is neurodiversity responsiveness. 

A neurodiversity responsive approach recognises that inclusion and liberation is not achieved through acceptance or awareness alone. It requires ongoing reflection, accountability, collaboration, and systemic change. It requires taking intentional action to identify and dismantle barriers, challenge neuronormativity, redistribute power, and redesign systems. 

Importantly, neurodiversity responsiveness is not intended to replace neurodiversity awareness or neurodiversity affirming practice. Instead, it builds upon them. Neurodiversity Awareness provides knowledge. Neurodiversity Affirming provides value and respect. Neurodiversity Responsiveness transforms that knowledge and respect into action and systemic change. 

This is about moving from knowing to valuing to responding and acting.

Neurodiversity Aware or Informed:

This is where one is informed or aware about neurodiversity. Individuals, professionals, organisations or businesses are aware of neurodiversity and the diversity of human minds. They understand that people experience, process, communicate, learn, feel, socialise, focus, regulate emotions and navigate the world in different ways.

Awareness is an important starting point, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to changes in attitudes, practices or systems.

Key Characteristics

• Basic knowledge of neurodiversity and related concepts

• Awareness of the existence of neurodivergent people

• Recognition of the diversity of human functioning

Neurodiversity Affirming:

When someone is neurodiversity affirming, they actively value, respect and affirm neurodivergent ways of thinking, communicating, sensing, learning, paying attention, processing, feeling and existing. Instead of viewing neurodivergence as a deficit, disorder or problem to be fixed, they recognise neurodivergent identity, strengths, needs and lived experiences as valid and meaningful.

Neurodiversity affirming practice seeks to support autonomy, self-determination and well-being. 

Key Characteristics

• Rejection of deficit-based narratives and language

• Respect for autonomy, self-advocacy and self-determination

• Validation of neurodivergent identities and lived experiences

• Recognition of strengths alongside support needs

• Commitment to dignity, inclusion and belonging

Neurodiversity responsive:

Neurodiversity responsive moves beyond awareness and valuing into intentional, ongoing action. Drawing on culturally responsive practice, it recognises that inclusion is not achieved by accepting differences but by moving into responsive action.

A neurodiversity responsive individual, professional, organisation or workplace continuously examines and challenges personal and societal assumptions about what is considered "normal," identifies and disrupts neuronormative expectations and works to dismantle barriers that restrict access, participation, and self-determination. This involves adapting environments, policies, practices, relationships, and systems to better respond to the strengths, needs, and lived experience of neurodivergent people.

Neurodiversity responsiveness recognises that meaningful inclusion requires ongoing reflection, collaboration, accountability, redistributing power and systemic transformation. It is not only about valuing neurodivergent people but taking action to create equitable, accessible, and liberatory environments where neurodivergent people can thrive.

Key Characteristics

• Active adaptation of environments, systems, policies and practices

• Ongoing critical reflection on personal biases, assumptions and neuronormative expectations

• Ongoing critical reflection on the relationship between themselves, others and the systems in which we interact

• Recognition and disruption of systemic barriers that disadvantage neurodivergent people

• Shared decision-making and co-design with neurodivergent people

• Responsiveness to individual, cultural and contextual differences

• Recognition of intersectionality and the influence of culture, race, gender, disability, socioeconomic status and other identities

• Accountability for creating accessible and inclusive environments

• Advocacy for systemic and structural change rather than solely individual accommodation

The goal of neurodiversity responsiveness is not just inclusion within current systems but transforming and disrupting current systems to improve equity, belonging, autonomy, justice and collective liberation.

Guiding Questions

A neurodiversity aware person asks:

"What is neurodiversity?"

A neurodiversity affirming person asks:

"How can I respect and support neurodivergent people?"

A neurodiversity responsive person asks:

"What barriers exist, who benefits from current dominant norms and systems, what assumptions and biases do I hold, whose needs and perspectives are being centred or excluded and what needs to change within the system for inclusion and collective liberation?"

In practice

A neurodiversity-aware organisation learns about neurodiversity.

A neurodiversity-affirming organisation values and respects neurodivergent employees.

A neurodiversity responsive organisation redesigns recruitment processes, communication practices, physical spaces, policies and decision-making structures in partnership with neurodivergent people to remove barriers.

If we are committed to genuine inclusion and collective liberation for neurodivergent people, neurodiversity responsiveness cannot be viewed as an optional addition to neurodiversity awareness or neurodiversity affirming practice. It is the necessary next step.

Neurodiversity awareness builds understanding.

Neurodiversity Affirming builds respect.

Neurodiversity Responsiveness creates change.

There is no such thing as a “neurodivergent condition” or “neurodivergent diagnosis”.

A socio-political identity and term cannot and should not be used to categorise a group of diagnoses or conditions. You cannot diagnose hierarchy, power or systems which is what neurodivergent is naming.

Neurodivergent disrupts psychiatric authority.

Neurodivergent shifts the conversation from pathology to acknowledging how people diverge from normative systems. While “neurodivergent” functions as a descriptor for anyone who diverges from neuronormativity, it also exists as a challenge to psychiatric authority and a way for individuals to resist diagnoses that label us as disordered or mentally ill.

Neurodivergent is a political term, not a clinical one.

Neurodivergent names power, systems and hierarchy and our relationship to it. Neurodivergent is not a medical term, clinical term or another diagnostic category which brings me to my next point.

Neuropsychiatrists, neuroscientists and clinicians are not the arbiters of what counts as neurodivergent or what neurodivergent means.

Why? Because neurodivergent is not a scientific term, a medical term or a term that can be defined by biomedical research.

Neurodivergent isn’t about structural differences in the brain but how people’s functioning diverges from neuronormativity.

Focusing on structural differences shifts the focus from neuronormativity and systems to biology. Are there structural brain differences? Maybe but it's not the point. It's about acknowledging the diversity of human functioning, acknowledging there are multiple ways to pay attention, learn, process information, communication, feel, express emotion and exist and recognising that neuronormativity creates systems and environments that reinforce a singular way to function. Neurodivergent is about naming how we diverge from neuronormativity, it’s not about explaining why we may or may not diverge.

Not everyone who is neurodivergent experiences the same level of marginalisation and pathologisation.

This is why it’s so important to acknowledge and discuss proximity to neuronormativity.

Neurodivergent people can still reinforce and perpetuate neuronormativity.

Just like certain members of the LGBTQIA+ community can reinforce cisnormative or heteronormative norms, neurodivergent people are not exempt from reinforcing neuronormative expectations or norms.

Neurodivergent only names whether someone diverges from neuronormativity, it doesn’t necessarily define how someone thinks about their neurodivergence.

Some neurodivergent people find their diverging from neuronormativity to be distressing to the point they wanna treat it or fix it and that is valid. Some neurodivergent people view the way they diverge as not distressing and they want it to be accommodated and that is also valid.

Neurodivergent includes any form of functioning that diverges from neuronormativity even if it’s not a diagnosis.

Someone can identify as neurodivergent even if they don’t have a diagnosis or no diagnosis names their functioning. I don't mean self-diagnosis is valid (even though it is) I mean that someone who is neurodivergent can reject diagnostic labels altogether and call themselves neurodivergent.

It is not accurate to say “neurodivergent traits” but it is accurate to say “neurodivergent experiences.”

Just like how we wouldn’t say queer traits or LGBTQIA+ traits but we can and do say queer experiences or experiences of LGBTQIA+ people.

Neurodivergent is not, has never been and will never be synonymous with neurodevelopmental condition.

It’s diverging from neuronormativity.

It’s not diverging from neuronormativity since you were born.

Like most communities, the neurodivergent community is not immune to reproducing the same hierarchies they seek to dismantle. As someone who is multiply neurodivergent, this is something I both witness and experience frequently. I call this phenomenon neurosupremacy which I first named and described back in 2024.

Neurosupremacy is the belief that certain neurodivergent people are superior to others, including other neurodivergent people. Neurosupremacy operates internally, within neurodivergent communities and it echoes similar dynamics to ‘aspie supremacy’ but extends to supremacy over other forms of neurodivergence. Neurosupremacy ranks certain forms of neurodivergence as more legitimate, acceptable, valuable and natural than others.

Neurosupremacy asks: which minds count? Which minds are better? Which minds are deserving of acceptance? Which minds are too much? Which minds are too threatening? Which minds should be cured? Which minds are mentally ill? These are the same questions that produced the categories of disordered, abnormal and mentally ill - the same categories we are supposed to be fighting against.

One of the clearest manifestations of neurosupremacy is the policing of who is allowed to identify as neurodivergent. Despite Kassiane Asasumasu (who coined neurodivergent) explicitly including all mental health conditions from the beginning, some people within the neurodivergent community attempt to narrow its definition to those who are ‘born this way’ or those who they deem to have a socially acceptable form of neurodivergence. More often than not, Autism and ADHD are framed as ‘natural differences’ while experiences like altered states such as mania or psychosis, plurality or hearing voices are framed as inherently pathological and therefore, excluded from the neurodivergent umbrella. And this distinction and exclusion is rarely neutral - it reflects a hierarchy in thinking and sanist attitudes that many neurodivergent people are not exempt from.

Neurosupremacy also shows up through assigning moral superiority and moral value to certain forms of neurodivergence and neurodivergent people. Certain neurodivergent people are framed as more empathetic which mistakes high empathy as having higher morals which just isn’t the case at all. Feeling the emotions of other people or experiencing intense emotions does not automatically translate into moral reasoning, ethics, compassion or accountability. People who experience high empathy are not any more moral or more compassionate than those who experience low empathy.

Similar to this is how certain neurodivergent people are framed as possessing heightened justice sensitivity. This trait is often used as evidence that neurodivergent people are more morally superior than neurotypical people or other neurodivergent people. I won’t get into how this isn’t actually a real trait exclusive to Autistic or ADHD people but rather, a presentation of cognitive inflexibility, but I do want to point out how this is yet another example of neurosupremacy.

Another example of neurosupremacy is the belief that only certain neurodivergent people are more deserving of autonomy. Within the neurodivergent community as well as neurodiversity affirming spaces, there is a pervasive assumption that certain neurodivergent people such as people diagnosed with personality disorders, schizophrenia, psychosis, plurality or bipolar are incapable of knowing themselves or making decisions. As a result, our voices are dismissed, our knowledge and lived experience is treated as unreliable, our consent is questioned and our agency is denied. Everything we say is filtered through a presumption of incompetence or doubt, our insights or opinions are treated as symptoms, our resistance is labelled as pathology. If we’re diagnosed with NPD, we’re automatically deemed an unreliable narrator of our own experiences. This assumption reinforces the idea that certain minds must be controlled for their own good. In this sense, neurosupremacy results in ranking who deserves autonomy and who does not.

Another clear example of neurosupremacy is the widespread use of terms such as ‘narcissistic abuse’. This language perpetuates the assumptions that trauma survivors who have been diagnosed with Narcisstic Personality Disorder are inherently abusive. As a catch all term, not only does it harm an entire community of individuals who are survivors of abuse and trauma themselves, it minimises complex experiences of harm and oversimplifies abuse as well as draws attention away from the patterns of power and control. And yet, whenever we call attention to the harm of using such a term, it’s often dismissed, with a prevailing attitude that it is acceptable to stigmatise and dehumanise people with NPD for the sake of having language to describe an experience.

This reflects a hierarchy within neurodivergent spaces in which certain neurodivergent people are afforded compassion, nuance and protection from stigma and generalisation while other neurodivergent people are positioned as undeserving of that same consideration. Just to put it into perspective, the neurodivergent community frequently challenges statements such as ‘they’re so OCD’ or ‘Autistic people lack empathy’ or ‘the weather is so bipolar’ because we recognise the harm caused by using diagnoses as adjectives or by generalising entire groups. Yet when similar generalising statements and terms (such as Narcisstic abuse) are directed towards people diagnosed with a personality disorder, many people don’t bat an eye or worse, they fight for the right to use a generalising and harmful term. This is neurosupremacy in action.

Another example of neurosupremacy in action is the growing belief that neurodivergent people are inherently better than neurotypical people or that neurodivergent people are the next step in human evolution. We’re framed as more ethical, more moral, more authentic, more creative or more empathetic than neurotypical people as if neurotypical people cannot be ethical, moral, authentic, creative or empathetic. Again, this is ranking individuals based on what traits we deem acceptable or superior - the same thing that has been done to us. And I get it, it’s often used as a way to feel better and reclaim a sense of pride when we’ve been made to feel inferior but positioning other people as inferior is not the way to go.

The idea that neurodivergent people are better than neurotypical people flattens both groups. It generalises neurotypical people and romanticises neurodivergence. It also ignores the diversity within both groups (hello, it’s called neurodiversity) and implies that neurodivergent people are inherently more moral or superior. I’m sorry but neurodivergent people can be shit people too.

In addition to this, it risks alienating and excluding neurodivergent people who don’t have high empathy, who aren’t creative, who aren’t articulate, which further marginalises people. In other words, neurosupremacy reproduces the same pattern and hierarchy it’s supposed to reject - some minds are seen as worthy while other minds are seen as inferior or disposable. Ultimately, neurosupremacy replaces one hierarchy with another hierarchy rather than dismantling hierarchies altogether.

I’ve even seen suggestions that we should replace neurodivergent with neurosuperior (a suggestion I’ve seen multiple times on LinkedIn). Again, this reflects the same hierarchical thinking that pathologises neurodivergent people as it positions one group of people as superior than another group of people.

No mind is better or more superior than another mind. That’s neurodiversity 101.

In order to challenge neurosupremacy and truly be neurodiversity affirming, we need to return to the radical roots of neurodiversity - we need to reject all hierarchies of minds, functioning and worth. We need to stop ranking individuals according to palatability, comfort, legitimacy and productivity and we need to stop sorting people into ‘good neurodivergence’ and ‘bad neurodivergence’.

If we don’t confront neurosupremacy within our own community, we are at risk of replicating the same hierarchical thinking, the same oppression, the same policing, the same exclusion and the same dehumanisation that we claim to oppose.

If the neurodivergent movement is to remain a movement of liberation, we must confront neurosupremacy within our own communities and we must recognise that neurodivergent liberation and neuroinclusion cannot be built on conditional acceptance and implementing new hierarchies.

Short answer? Yes.

In order to understand how and why neurotypical people do exist, we need to understand a couple of things about neurotypical.

Despite what people may think, much like the word neurodivergent, neurotypical didn’t emerge from psychiatry or neuroscience and it wasn’t coined to describe a ‘normal brain’.

Neurotypical originally started off as satire - a way to mimic the pathologising language used to describe Autistic people but flipping it onto so called ‘normal’ traits to expose how arbitrary and absurd it was to pathologise Autistic traits. It was a way to subvert the power dynamics that are embedded in diagnostic language and categories or a way to show how easy it is to pathologise any form of behaviour if you just talk about it a certain way.

Unsurprisingly, neurotypical caught on as a term to describe those who can comfortably, sustainably and consistently align with neuronormativity or dominant cultural norms around how people should function.

Neurotypical is not, and was never, a biological or scientific term which is the point.

One of the biggest misconceptions around neurotypical is that it refers to a ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ brain wiring or a ‘normal brain’. In fact, neurotypical can’t refer to a normal brain because there’s no such thing as a normal brain anyway according to neurodiversity. There is no single neurological blueprint from which other brains diverge from.

When people say that there’s no such thing as a normal or typical brain, they’re absolutely correct but this doesn’t mean that neurotypical people don’t exist.

This is because neurotypical can be better understood as a social position or social category.

Neurotypical refers to people who are rewarded a certain level of power and privilege for how closely their functioning aligns with neuronormativity. It describes individuals who are rewarded for how closely, comfortably and sustainably they can perform and maintain neuronormativity.

Dr Nick Walker compares neurotypical to being cisgender or straight and states the following her book, Neuroqueer Heresies:

“If you can perform your assigned heteronormative gender role convincingly enough throughout your life, and if staying within the boundaries of that performance is actually sustainable and bearable for you, and if you choose to stay within those boundaries and comply with the demands of heteronormativity, then the dominant culture judges your gender and sexuality to be “normal” and rewards you with cisgender privilege and straight privilege in other words, the reward for your constant and convincing compliance with dominant standards of heteronormativity is that members and institutions of the dominant culture don’t discriminate against you for being queer.”

We can apply this same understanding to being neurotypical.

If you can perform neuronormativity and if meeting neuronormative expectations and standards is sustainable and bearable, then the dominant culture judges your functioning to be “normal” and you are rewarded or at the very least, you aren’t discriminated against and labelled as disordered or mentally ill.

When we say cisgender people exist, we aren’t saying cisgender people have a normal gender. When we say straight people exist, we aren’t saying straight people have a normal sexuality.

When we say neurotypical people exist, we aren’t saying neurotypical people have a normal brain. We are saying there are people who occupy a privileged social position within a neuronormative society.

Why is denying the existence of neurotypical people a problem?

Some people argue that neurotypical people don’t exist because everyone is different and while they’re absolutely right, everyone is different, but this actually dismisses power dynamics and power imbalances.

Saying neurotypical people don’t exist is as nonsensical as saying straight people, white people or cisgender people don’t exist. In fact, when we deny the existence of neurotypical people, we are at risk of denying and dismissing the power dynamic at play. If we deny the existence of straight or cisgender people, we end up denying and ignoring the advantages and privileges of aligning with cisnormativity and heteronormativity.

If we deny social categories, we end up denying the privileges attached to it. If we fail to acknowledge neurotypical privilege, we fail to challenge those privileges and we fail to challenge to neuronormativity.

Proximity to Neuronormativity

Acknowledging that neurotypical people exist doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge that neuronormativity harms everyone including neurotypical people. In fact, everyone would actually benefit from neuronormativity been dismantled and disrupted.

However, it’s so important to recognise that that harm is not distributed evenly. While neuronormativity harms everyone, not everyone is significantly disadvantaged by neuronormativity.

This is where we need to recognise and discuss proximity to neuronormativity. Individuals vary in how closely they align with neuronormativity and this alignment informs how someone is treated, included, excluded, perceived, awarded, punished and obviously, pathologised and the consequences that come with that.

Some people might experience neuronormativity as a mild annoyance or pressure to stay focused, stay organised, stay emotionally regulated, work a certain way, socialise a certain way, communicate a certain way but these expectations don’t significantly impact them because meeting them is relatively sustainable or the very least, manageable without negatively impacting them. However, for other people, neuronormativity isn’t a subtle reminder or pressure but a significant barrier and source of chronic strain, exclusion, discrimination and punishment.

Those with greater proximity to neuronormativity avoid social punishment, discrimination and pathologisation entirely. People with greater proximity to neuronormativity move through the word with fewer obstacles.

Those with less proximity to neuronormativity are labelled as disordered, mentally ill and face the consequences of being labelled as such - punished, institutionalised, excluded, discriminated against. We are impacted by the expectations of neuronormativity every single day in various aspects of our lives. Our very existence is policed by neuronormativity.

So, do neurotypical people exist?

Yes. As a social category, not a biological category.

Acknowledging neurotypical people is not about reinforcing binaries but about naming power and we cannot dismantle neuronormativity without naming that power.

I’m an inconsistent person.

I’m inconsistent in the way my attention ebbs and flows throughout the day; it isn’t steady; it shifts in intensity, direction and focus. I’m inconsistent when it comes to my capacity; I don’t have the same capacity every day. I’m inconsistent in my ability to communicate; I can take days or weeks to respond to emails or messages. I’m inconsistent in my moods and emotions.

I’ve always been made to feel bad for my inconsistency in one way or another. I’ve been told I’m unreliable for not showing up to an appointment because I couldn’t leave the house when I could the week before. I’ve been made to feel like I’m flakey because I have to cancel plans often. I’ve lost friendships because I can’t keep up with the consistent and regular communication that is often expected in neuronormative friendships. I’ve lost jobs because I can’t consistently attend shifts or even perform the job duties consistently. I’ve had my fleeting hobbies, interests and phases pathologised and labelled as a sign of an unstable sense of self.

All of these experiences and messages have led me to view my inconsistency as a personal failing; something wrong with me; a sign of an illness; a deficit.

I know I’m not alone in feeling like I’m unworthy or inadequate because I am inconsistent. I know I’m not the only person who has felt like they’ll never find friends who don’t hold it against them when they have to cancel. I know I’m not the only content creator who feels like a bad content creator because they don’t, and can’t, post consistently. I know I’m not the only person who has been afraid they’ll be fired because they’ve taken too many sick days.

In order to challenge and disrupt neuronormativity, we need to break away from our tendency to view any kind of inconsistency as a red flag or personal failing.

Inconsistent communication from a partner is often labelled as a red flag yet this doesn’t account for the differences in neurodivergent people’s communication, executive functioning or capacity. Cancelling plans or showing up late is seen as another red flag yet this doesn’t consider how neurodivergent and disabled people have differences in our capacity, energy and time perception.

I want to be clear that I’m not saying inconsistency is never a bad thing or can’t be a red flag. There are certainly some contexts and situations where inconsistency isn’t a good thing but it’s the value judgments that we place on inconsistency that is the problem. It’s our default tendency to shame any sign of inconsistency.

I truly believe our attitudes towards inconsistency are harming both neurodivergent and disabled people; causing unnecessary feelings of shame. It’s setting up standards and expectations that we cannot meet, no matter how hard we try.

I used to see my inconsistency as a personal failing but now, I see consistency as the expectation that is failing everyone.

I am not a bad person if I have to cancel plans.

I’ve been called unreliable, irresponsible, lazy and made to feel like a bad person for my inconsistent capacity and fluctuating needs. I tend to cancel plans a lot. I cancel on friends, I cancel on dates and I cancel on appointments that yes, I really shouldn’t cancel on. I used to be the employee that would call in sick a lot when I tried to work part time. As an advocate and public speaker, I still have times where I have to cancel the occasional talk or workshop. I’ve done it a few times this year and each time, I’ve felt strong feelings of shame, guilt and failure. I won’t sugar coat it, it often feels like I’ve disappointed the other person so greatly that I can expect their rejection at any moment.

It isn’t fair that we can feel so much shame that feeds into self-hatred for something that is out of our control. I don’t think we deserve to feel guilt or embarrassment for responding to our needs by cancelling and it definitely isn’t fair that cancelling plans is so often viewed as a personal failing.

I’m lucky because I have found friends who understand that it may take me days or weeks to respond to messages. I have found people who don’t judge me if I need to cancel plans because they understand that my capacity and energy for tasks can change. I hold myself to more sustainable expectations when it comes to managing my schedule because I recognise my inconsistent capacity.

If we can understand that everyone has individual needs, capacity and energy levels and how this may lead to us having to cancel or back out of plans, maybe we could feel less shit about ourselves.

Our energy and capacity is inconsistent and because it is inconsistent, our ability to show up in our social life; our work life; our dating life and our home life, is also going to be inconsistent. It does mean we’re going to have to cancel plans, even when we don’t want to, and we shouldn’t have to view cancelling as a bad thing. I’m not a bad person for cancelling because I’m not a bad person for honouring my capacity or my needs. I don’t like cancelling but I refuse to allow myself to feel worse for having to do it and I will not surround myself with people who make me feel guilty for having to do it either. I don’t believe you should either.

My hobbies and interests aren’t any less important because they change a lot.

I used to feel embarrassed about changing from hobby to hobby; for never being able to just stick to one or two. As someone with the label of Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar, my fleeting and ever changing interests were always put down to an unstable sense of self or mania. And it led me to be afraid of my changing interests; that if I started to become interested in something, it wasn’t what I really wanted, it was a sign that I didn’t really know myself. I had an unstable sense of self, after all. My ever changing hobbies and interests have been turned into a symptom they want to fix or manage.

I have been told by countless narratives around me that my hyperfixations, my inconsistent hobbies and interests are a sign of an illness - something wrong with me instead of something that is a part of who I am. As a result, I question every phase I go through, every hobby I pick up, every interest that catches my fancy and every idea I have, no matter how brilliant the idea. Whenever I decide I like wearing a new colour (my current colour phase is brown) or whenever I decide to explore a new hobby I hesitate to share in case of how other people may react.

Will they take me less seriously?

Will they question my frame of mind?

Will they see the hobby as less valid because it might not last?

Do you know how many hobbies or interests I’ve had in my life so far? I’ve been into Magic The Gathering, Rocket League, Doctor Who, cross stitching, owls, skateboarding, roller skating, baking, hiking, painting furniture, dinosaurs, pole dancing, make-up, crocs, powerlifting, growing potatoes, musical theatre, singing, Twilight, photography, film photography and so much more.

I never know how long a hobby or interest will last for. I never know what will become such an integral part of me. I never know what will catch my fancy next. I can’t predict what will become my next hyperfixation or the next hobby I’ll pick up temporarily before putting it down. When I do discover a new hobby, however, and it tickles a part of my brain that lights up like fairy lights at a pool party, it usually goes like this:

I discover a new hobby. I get really excited so I start researching and I consume all of the content. I make it my mission to collect the things to do the hobby which often includes buying all the things. I enjoy the hobby and after a while, I lose interest in the hobby. Rinse, cycle, repeat. In the past, the cycle would end with me feeling embarrassed that yet again another hobby didn’t last. I would worry that someone would ask how my hobby was going at the time and I would have to admit I wasn’t doing it anymore. I would feel guilty every time I walked past the discarded hobbies; the guitar in the lounge room; the collection of rollerblades on the shelf; the half painted chair in the kitchen; the unused collection of colourful eye liner that was inspired after watching Jezz Chung online.

I used to try to prevent this cycle by not pursuing any hobbies at all. As if having hobbies or interests isn’t worth it if you don’t stick with it forever. It wasn’t worth enjoying something temporarily if it was only going to be met with shame or judgement. I didn’t want to feel like a failure for not sticking with a hobby. I definitely didn’t want to feel like I wasted money on a hobby only to discard it after a while. I’ll admit that I have made poor choices in the past when it comes to spending money on a new favourite interest or hobby. It is hard not to feel guilty for spending money on a hobby when it meant you didn’t pay a bill. It’s easier to look at the discarded hobbies sitting in the spare room when they don’t remind you of unpaid debts or the fight you got into with your partner. I think it’s possible to acknowledge we could’ve spent the money differently without beating ourselves up. I just don’t see shame and guilt as a helpful way to look at my hobbies and interests. I experience enough shame as it is, I don’t need to experience it walking through my house or every time I’m like “I should take up rock painting”, you know?

I don’t want to change my relationship with my hobbies. I don’t believe I can change my relationship with my hobbies. There’s no right way to experience hobbies or interests, right?

I prefer to follow my whims, curiosity and sparks of inspiration.

I mentioned the cycle of changing hobbies earlier and while I can’t change the cycle, I can skip the feelings of guilt, embarrassment and shame. I don’t want to hate myself because I’m seen as fickle for changing hobbies or interests all the time. I hope you know thar you don’t need to, either. You don’t need to master every hobby. It’s okay to try out hobbies. You don’t need to stick to every hobby you try. Your interests are allowed to change. Frequently, too!

Some hobbies and interests come and go.

Some hobbies and interests stick around like a favourite childhood toy.

Some hobbies and interests rotate like comets coming into orbit every so often.

I used to see my discarded hobbies as collecting dust but now I look at them like I would look at art in a gallery, reminding me of every moment of joy, curiosity, excitement and passion. I don’t see it as a museum of forgotten items but as a hobby shop that I can return to at any time.

Just because you only enjoyed something temporarily doesn’t mean it wasn’t important, valuable or enjoyable. There is nothing wrong with enjoying something. There is nothing wrong with enjoying something for the sake of enjoying it and there’s nothing wrong with moving on once you’ve enjoyed something. If you’re wondering whether the hobby was worth it or valuable, ask yourself:

Did you have fun discovering a new hobby before abandoning it?

Did you have fun learning a new skill before abandoning it?

Did you have fun gaining knowledge before abandoning it?

Did you simply have fun?

An inconsistent path is still a path to somewhere.

I used to be embarrassed about my unconventional pathway. The fact it took me seven years to finish one degree. The fact that I have switched and dropped multiple degrees - wasting both money and time. The fact that I’ve applied to nine different universities only to never follow through because of mania and spontaneous hyperfixations.

I choose to not be embarrassed anymore. I choose to not be ashamed of my unconventional pathway or my barely passing grades because an inconsistent path is still a path to somewhere.

Firstly, I know my unconventional and inconsistent pathway was impacted by my disabilities, mental health and lack of support, a stable home and financial security. I dunno about you but to be neurodivergent and disabled is to live a life of inconsistent pathways. Secondly, I believe my unconventional pathway was a reflection of discovery and learning. Maybe I needed to figure some stuff out. Maybe I needed to drop out to discover my values and I needed to switch degrees to discover my interests.

Imagine if I didn’t drop out of forensic science? Imagine if I didn’t have the guts to pursue psychology because I listened to stereotypes about dropping out. If I didn’t switch degrees for the third time, I never would have been president of the nursing society at my university or joined the rural nursing club. If you’re wondering where part of my advocacy and public speaking skills come from, it’s from these experiences. Experiences I never would have had if I didn’t switch degrees three times, if I wasn’t so inconsistent. If I didn’t drop out of my nursing degree only to return to studying psychology, I never would have worked in peer support. I gained a lot of my values from peer support and the lived experience community. I actually moved from peer support into advocacy so I am where I am now because of the consequences of my inconsistency. I can’t fault that. I can’t fault my path no matter how unconventional or inconsistent it is.

I guess I don’t want anyone else to fault their own personal path either. If you’re reading this and feeling embarrassed over your own experiences with university or college, I want you to know a couple of things. Firstly, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with dropping out of a degree when your circumstances, needs or capacity change. Secondly, you’re allowed to switch degrees as you discover new strengths, goals or interests. And lastly, an inconsistent path is still a path that leads somewhere.

I am a constellation of my phases.

I want to address one last aspect of inconsistency that is often made fun of, belittled and even pathologized within Western society - which is phases. Have you noticed how shame, dismissiveness and judgement are associated with almost everything that’s considered a phase?

When relationships go through a so-called honeymoon phase, you often hear judgmental comments like “it won’t last” or “they’re just in the honeymoon phase”. I know of people having their experiences or feelings dismissed because it’s just a honeymoon phase. I’ve heard parents awkwardly tell the other parents that their kid who is currently dressed head to toe in Spiderman is just going through a phase. Or their rebellious kid who’s taken an interest in heavy metal, that’s just another phase too.

I go through phases a lot. I think it’s a part of my personality, really. I’m going through a couple of phases right now. And while these phases will surely end eventually, I’m not going to treat them or view them any less.

I have always felt the need to defend any phase I go through. I’m sure you’ve uttered the phrase “it’s not just a phase” at least once in your life as an act of defence. I would like to pose the question, why do we feel the need to defend something even if it is a phase? It might very well be a phase. There’s nothing wrong with going through a phase. In fact, I feel like our lives are made up of phases. It isn’t our phases that are a problem, it’s our attitude towards them. It’s our tendency to view phases as something negative - as if being temporary diminishes its value. I don’t think it does though.

I do not believe something is any less important or meaningful or even enjoyable just because it was temporary.

It’s like relationships and friendships that come and go. I’ve had many relationships and friendships that didn’t last but it doesn’t mean those relationships and friendships weren’t important and valuable at the time. I feel like I have taken something from every person who has passed through my life. I have a love of photography and musical theatre because of a friend that introduced me to them over fifteen years ago. One of my comfort shows is Stargate because when I lived on campus, a friend would invite me over to watch it, when neither of us could sleep. I belt out The Horses every time it comes on because of the times I spent at the local pub with a previous boyfriend.

While each of these relationships and friendships were temporary, I don’t believe for a second that they were worthless, pointless or meaningless. I believe the same of the phases we go through. I don’t believe our phases, however temporary, are automatically worthless, pointless or meaningless. Obviously, it doesn’t mean we have to put stock into every single phase. I mean, my extreme bucket hat phase from two summers ago isn’t that meaningful. I just really liked bucket hats for a while and I’m sure my milk crate full of bucket hats can attest to that. It’s simply about not using the possibility of something being a phase as a reason to dismiss it or view it as any less valuable or meaningful. And our phases can be valuable even if the value comes from the temporary enjoyment.

I hope you can find the time, space and freedom to chase your curiosity, joy, wonder and desires.

I hope you can follow the train tracks of your attention wherever they may go.

I hope you can try on different roles and discard them as you outgrow them.

I am where I am now because of the consequences of my inconsistency.

If inconsistent means not staying the same throughout then I am proudly inconsistent. Of course I haven’t stayed the same throughout my life and I hope I don’t remain the same throughout the rest of my life. I don’t ever want to find myself stagnant, unchanging, as the world around me keeps moving. I choose to embrace the shifting and transforming as I move through different phases and stages of my life. I don’t want my hobbies and interests to remain the same; I want to enjoy every passing phase or fancy and follow every whim or desire. I refuse to be confined to a single path; preferring to wander over to new paths as circumstances change or as opportunities arise.

If this is inconsistent, I will remain consistently inconsistent for the rest of my life.

I am where I am now because of the consequences of my inconsistency. If my path through life wasn’t inconsistent, if my path remained the same, I would still be where I was ten years ago or twenty years ago. Imagine if we didn’t change or grow as people? Imagine if we always held the same beliefs, standards and opinions despite our continuous learning as we move through life? Imagine if we didn’t allow ourselves to be open to new opportunities and temporary phases? Imagine if we restricted ourselves to only liking certain hobbies for the rest of our life? I can’t imagine that at all. I think it shows how consistency just isn’t possible, let alone sustainable, with so much diversity and so many variables.

If we know consistency is an unrealistic neuronormative standard, maybe we can hold less shame towards ourselves and other people can have more understanding.

If we are to embrace neurodiversity, we must embrace the inconsistency in our lives, our needs, our capacity and selves.

Autistic meltdowns can manifest in different ways; each meltdown looks different for every Autistic person. I’m someone who has aggressive meltdowns. I’ve had aggressive meltdowns since I was a child and while I have less meltdowns the older I get and the more I accommodate my needs, I still experience aggressive meltdowns.

When I was younger, my meltdowns would involve screaming, yelling, throwing items, slamming doors and overturning the furniture in my room. When I was in class, my meltdowns would involve throwing chairs, tearing up whatever I was working on or pushing whatever objects were closest to the ground.

As a child and teenager, during moments of significant stress, my meltdowns would involve being aggressive towards other students. I’m not proud of these moments but I would like to say that whenever I was aggressive towards other students, it was always, always, in response to bullying. I know it doesn’t mean my behaviour was right but I do believe it provides context. 

When I was twelve years old, I had a meltdown and it involved me throwing a chair at another kid. Obviously, the teacher witnessed my display of violent behaviour but you want to know what they didn’t witness? They didn’t see the hours of hair pulling or teasing, the spit balls all over my back or the threats of following me home and beating me up. And that’s while sitting in a classroom, increasingly overwhelmed by the sensory input around me. 

When I was fourteen years old, I was allowed to get my first lunch order. I was so excited when I picked up my mini pizza from the canteen that day and brought it back to where my friends were sitting. I needed to go to the toilet so I left my pizza with my friends and when I returned, it was nowhere in sight. As each friend participated in the withholding and teasing of my pizza, I became increasingly frustrated. I kept asking for my pizza and my friends kept refusing to give it to me while laughing at my obvious distress. It was too much and so, I exploded. I jumped on the girl with the suspiciously placed backpack to desperately fight for the pizza that was rightfully mine. I was punished for fighting with a suspension while the girl who had my pizza hidden in her backpack walked away, free from consequences.

As an adult, I haven’t been aggressive at anyone but I also don’t get violently bullied by other people in an overstimulating environment where I can’t escape anymore. I have had many meltdowns where I do throw things though. It’s just usually directed towards the floor or wall. I tried to live in a share house when I was twenty one years old and I would often have meltdowns whenever I tried to cook. I would become increasingly overwhelmed and it would end in an explosive fit of frustration where I would throw a saucepan or plate on the ground. None of us, including me, had an understanding of Autism so I was seen as explosive, dangerous and angry. I had a meltdown in front of my best friend a while ago. I was trying to do too many things at once and as I was trying to do one task, I kept coming up against obstacle after obstacle. I could feel the tension in my body increase till I ended up exploding; throwing the remote in my hand as I screamed out of frustration.

I’m not proud of my aggressive meltdowns but I want to be honest about them.

Like many others, I feel a lot of shame and guilt over my meltdowns. I often question whether I’m a toxic friend or partner. I often wonder if my aggressive meltdowns are a sign of my true character. I’m embarrassed to approach my partner or friend after I have a meltdown; afraid now they’ll hate me. I worry about having a meltdown in front of a new friend or partner; afraid of how it’ll change their opinion of me. 

Unfortunately, these feelings of shame, embarrassment, worry and fear have come from how my meltdowns have been treated in the past. And they continue to be reinforced by Autistic people and non-Autistic people alike. A while ago, I shared my experiences of what an Autistic meltdown looks like for me on my social media. I was told by countless strangers that I was an abusive person; a bad person. It really hurt when I was told that my meltdowns weren’t an excuse for my aggressive behaviours from other Autistic people. If anyone should be understanding of meltdowns, it should be other Autistic people, right? 

It isn’t anything I hadn’t heard before, of course.

When I was younger, I would have meltdowns around my younger siblings. I know it would’ve been scary for them. And I understand that no parent would want their children around someone who is yelling, swearing and throwing things. It still hurt though when I was told I was a danger to my siblings. It felt like I was portrayed as a bully and a naughty kid because of how my family would respond to my meltdowns or talk about my meltdowns. Instead of my siblings learning about Autism and meltdowns, they were learning how to fear me and hate me. 

I was always punished for my meltdowns. I was suspended from school every time I had a meltdown. I wasn’t sent to the school psychologist or a sensory safe space to regulate; I was sent to the principal’s office. It wasn’t any different at home either. I wasn’t met with understanding, compassion or patience. I wasn’t given time to recover after a meltdown. I wasn’t given space to be alone with my special interests. I was shoved into my room and afterwards, told to apologise and clean up the mess I had made.

I was taught to view myself as a bad person because I was punished for my meltdowns. I was taught that my meltdowns were bad behaviour so I grew to believe I was a bad person for not controlling my bad behaviour. And over the past number of years, I’ve been slowly unlearning what I’ve been taught.

I am learning to view my aggressive meltdowns neutrally.

An Autistic meltdown is a complete loss of control over our behaviour, communication, emotions and responses. A meltdown isn’t bad behaviour. A meltdown isn’t a representation of our character. A meltdown isn’t an act of manipulation or abuse. It isn’t fair to use our meltdowns as a measure for what kind of partner, friend or person we are. And it definitely isn’t fair to punish us for our meltdowns. Every meltdown deserves to be approached with understanding regardless of what it looks like. An Autistic person who screams and throws objects during a meltdown is as deserving of compassion as an Autistic person who cries and runs away during a meltdown. An Autistic person who has a fight response is as deserving of compassion as an Autistic person who has a flight or freeze response. 

I’m not a bad person because I have violent or aggressive meltdowns. You’re not a bad person because you have violent or aggressive meltdowns. And we’re not bad partners or friends because we have aggressive meltdowns. 

To the Autistic people who have destructive and aggressive meltdowns, you’re not a bad person. To the Autistic people whose anger has ruined friendships, I hope you find friends who can hold space for your anger. To the Autistic people who feel shame or guilt because they throw things during a meltdown, there are lots of things to throw that aren’t breakable. To the people who are loving Autistic people who experience aggressive meltdowns, you can continue to love us and prioritise your own safety during our meltdowns. 

This essay was originally produced for my Masters of Arts (Women and Gender Studies) at Flinders University.

The white, heteropatriarchy is a system of power that reinforces gender norms and roles based on rigid and binary understandings of masculinity and femininity as well as whiteness. The gendering of Autism is yet another way to perpetuate cisgenderism and erase those who deviate from heteronormative gender roles. I am using this essay to argue that the concept of ‘male Autism’ and ‘female Autism’ operates within and upholds the white heteropatriarchy and enforces heteronormative gender norms, expression and stereotypes.

As Caroline Criado Perez (2019) discusses in The Default Male, medical research has a history of focusing on male participants and centering the experiences of males. This has contributed to the male experiences being seen as the universal experience. Autism research is no exception to this phenomenon. Autism research has predominantly focused on men and boys which has led to the male Autistic experience being seen as the universal or default Autistic experience. As a result, women and girls as well as other marginalised genders have historically been excluded from Autism research. This intentional exclusion is evident through the silencing of Dr. Grunya Sukhavera’s research on Autism which centered both girls and boys (Sher & Gibson, 2023). Instead, it is the research on Autistic boys by Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger that has been favoured. In fact, research on Autism barely acknowledges Dr. Grunya Sukhavera’s work. Perez (2019) recognises this in The Default Male as a common experience; female researchers and scholars are ignored in favour of male researchers and scholars as well as research centering a disproportionate amount of male participants versus female participants.

This gap in research and the centering of male experience as the default experience has led to the neglect and misunderstanding of women’s health (Perez, 2019) which is exactly what we have seen in our understanding of Autism. Since the design and development of Autism assessments was based on existing research that has predominantly focused on Autistic traits in men and boys, Autism assessments have led to the missed identification of Autism in women, girls and other marginalised genders. As a result, men and boys are four times more likely to be diagnosed with Autism compared to women and girls (D’Mellow, Frosch, Cardinaux, & Gabrieli, 2022). Women and girls are not only less likely to be correctly diagnosed as Autistic but are more likely to receive an incorrect diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, social anxiety or an eating disorder (Lockwood Estrin, 2021).

While I cannot deny the lack of inclusion of women and girls within Autism research has definitely contributed to the lack of diagnosis and misdiagnosis, I do believe that we fall at risk of ignoring both racial bias and socioeconomic factors as a significant contributor to the diagnostic gap. It isn’t just women and girls who are excluded from Autism research but Black and Indigenous people who have been excluded from Autism research. In 2016, a review revealed that in 408 published Autism studies, less than 18% reported the race and ethnicity of its participants (West, Travers, Kemper, Liberty, Cote, McCollow, & Stansberry Brusnahan, 2016). I believe this is a significant problem that Audre Lorde (1984) acknowledges in her essay, Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Differences. Too often, we tend to focus on the oppression of women while failing to acknowledge the intersecting oppression in regards to race and class.

As a result of this gender bias within Autism research and the positioning of males as the default experience, the concept of ‘female Autism’ has become increasingly popular in order to recognise the experiences of Autistic women and girls and address the diagnostic gap. The concept of ‘male Autism’ and ‘female Autism' has become another way for the white, heteropatriarchy to reinforce heternormative gender norms. I believe it does this through cisgenderism; a system that erases gender identities that do not align with assigned gender at birth (Lennon & Mistler, 2014). This binary concept contributes to the exclusion of transgender and non-binary people and any other gender non-conforming people.

The white, heteronormative patriarchy has a significant history of reinforcing gender norms through its strict binary of masculinity and femininity where masculinity is historically tied to men and femininity is tied to women (Halberstam, 1998). We have strict ideas of what femininity looks like, and who can embody it, and what masculinity looks like, and who can embody it, which all plays into heteronormative gender norms and stereotypes.

If we look through the online discourse on social media in regards to ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’, we’ll see different traits and behaviours associated with either gender. ‘Female Autism’ is associated with appearing quiet, shy, empathetic, nurturing and sensitive. These characteristics are often associated with femininity. ‘Male Autism’ is associated with appearing disruptive, aggressive and displaying more repetitive and rigid behaviours. These characteristics are often associated with masculinity. By reinforcing feminine characteristics with women and masculine characteristics with men, the concept of ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’ are reinforcing gender norms. Additionally, many Autistic women and girls report masking in order to fit in socially. These behaviours reinforce heternormative gender stereotypes and expectations of women - that women must be socially competent, submissive and nice.

Another differentiation between ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’ is that girls and women tend to hold special interests that are gender appropriate interests such as animals, arts and crafts, celebrities and fashion while boys and men tend to be interested in gender appropriate interests such as dinosaurs, trains, computers and other science and technology based subjects (Brown, Bernardin, Beauchamp, Kanne, & Nowell, 2024). Again, we are assigning what activities or in this case, interests are considered appropriate for an individual based on their gender and reinforcing the idea that femininity is inherently tied to women and masculinity is inherently tied to men.

This splitting of Autism into female Autism and male Autism merely reinforces rigid beliefs and expectations when it comes to gender expression and gender roles as well as femininity and masculinity. I find this relates strongly to what Halberstamd (1998) states in Female Masculinity, both women and gender non-conforming people can and do embody masculinity. Conversely, both men and gender non-conforming people can and do embody femininity. As a result, I find the very concept of ‘male Autism’ and ‘female Autism’ contributes to the erasure of non-cisgender Autistic experiences and non-binary individuals who do not fit into the mould of so-called ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’.

The idea of ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’ is just another example of Western society’s inability to recognise androgynous women, masculine women and boyish girls and otherwise ambiguously gendered bodies and experiences. I find, again, this is supported by what Halberstamd (1998) has stated in Female Masculinity; there is a continued refusal in Western society to admit ambiguously gendered bodies. Since the white, heteronormative patriarchy relies on fixed, binary understandings of gender in order to maintain traditional power hierarchies (Lennon & Mistler, 2014) and cisgenderism upholds these binaries by denying the existence of people who exist outside of them, I argue that this is exactly what ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’ does; it denies the existence of Autistic people who exist outside of this binary concept.

The binary concept of ‘female Autism’ and ‘male Autism’ are also based on white, Western and cisgender populations. It is important to remember that what constitutes appropriate female or male behaviours in regards to femininity and masculinity are racialized too. Since ‘female Autism’ represents a white, emotionally sensitive and socially compliant person, it excludes and ignores Black, Brown and Indigenous Autistic people who fall outside this white, feminine expression. This very concept assumes universal gender expressions which ignores how race shapes gender and gender expression (Lorde, 1984) as well as how racial stereotypes impact how one perceives Autistic traits.

The white, heteropatriarchy marginalises and excludes transgender and non-binary individuals as well as anyone who doesn’t fit into the binary and rigid understandings of masculinity and femininity. This is why it’s important to understand that the gendering of Autism as ‘male Autism’ and ‘female Autism’ is not grounded in any scientific classification of diagnostic distinction but rather, a reflection of gender biases that upholds the white, heteropatriarchy and heternormative gender norms.

References

Brown, E. C., Bernardin, J. C., Beauchamp, T. M., Kanne, M. S., & Nowell, P. K. (2024). More similar than different: characterizing special interests in autistic boys and girls based on caregiver report. Autism Research, 17(11), 2333–2345. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3216

D’Mellow, M. A., Frosch, R. I., Li, E. C., Cardinaux, L. A., & Gabrieli, D. J. (2022). Exclusion of females in autism research: empirical evidence for a “leaky” recruitment‐to‐research pipeline. Autism Research, 15(10), 1929-1940. doi: 10.1002/aur.2795.

Lockwood Estrin, G., Milner, V., Spain, D., Happé, F., & Colvert, E. (2021). Barriers to autism spectrum disorder diagnosis for young women and girls: a Systematic Review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-020-00225-8

Halberstam, J. (1998). Female Masculinity (pp 1-29). Duke University Press.

Lennon, E., & Mistler, B. J. (2014). Cisgenderism. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1-2), pp 63–64.

Lorde, A. (1984). Age, race, class and sex: Women redefining differences. In Sister Outsider: Essays & Speeches (pp 114-123). Crossing Press.

Perez, C. C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men (pp 1-25). Abrams Press.

Sher, D. A., & Gibson, J. L. (2023). Pioneering, prodigious and perspicacious: Grunya Efimovna Sukhareva's life and contribution to conceptualising autism and schizophrenia. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01875-7

West, E. A., Travers, J. C., Kemper, T. D., Liberty, L. M., Cote, D. L., McCollow, M. M., & Stansberry Brusnahan, L. L. (2016). Racial and ethnic diversity of participants in research supporting evidence-based practices for learners with autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of Special Education, 50(3), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916632495

Despite conflicting answers online from those who still view neurodivergent as synonymous with neurodevelopmental condition, the answer is, and has always been, a resounding yes.

If you’re wondering how and why mental health conditions count as forms of neurodivergence and why people with mental health conditions are allowed to identify as neurodivergent, I would like to clear some things up.

Neurodivergence doesn’t mean you’re born with it - this isn’t a Maybelline ad.

Neurodivergence can include innate or genetic neurodivergence as well as acquired neurodivergence - which means even if you don’t diverge till later on in life, you can still call yourself neurodivergent. Just like if you don’t develop a disability till later in life, you can still call yourself disabled.

Neurodivergent isn’t a fixed identity just like disabled isn’t a fixed identity.

Regardless of whether something is innate, genetic or acquired, it doesn’t actually matter when it comes to neurodivergence.

Image Credit: Neuroqueer Heresies by Dr Nick Walker

This is because neurodivergent is a social and political term.

Neurodivergent is not another biological category or a medical or clinical term.

Neurodivergent refers to anyone who diverges from neuronormativity - an oppressive colonial and capitalist ideology that reinforces the idea of a “normal” mind and believes there is a right or superior way to function.

Basically, individuals with a mental health condition diverge from neuronormativity.

If you’re a System or diagnosed with DID or OSDD, you diverge from neuronormativity because neuronormativity believes having a singular sense of self is the right way to function, exist or be.

If you have bipolar, you diverge from neuronormativity because neuronormativity believes there is a right way to experience shifts in attention, mood, energy and time perception.

If you hear voices, you diverge from neuronormativity because neurnormativity and the pathology paradigm and really, Western society views hearing voices as a sign of illness, as something wrong or abnormal.

Neurodivergent names a social position.

It names individuals who are marginalised, pathologised, oppressed, punished and labelled as mentally ill or disordered for functioning in a way that diverges from neuronormativity and individuals diagnosed with a mental health condition are absolutely othered, punished, marginalised and pathologised.

Another point is that neurodivergent is often a term of resistance.

For many of us, neurodivergent is about rejecting the pathology paradigm that labels and views our differences and the way we function as an illness or disorder.

There are so many individuals with mental health conditions who reject the idea that their voices, plurality, distress or altered states are signs of an illness - and so we deserve access to a term for that. We reject the dominant systems that pathologise our minds and we deserve to have term that doesn’t view our differences as a disorder or illness. We deserve to have a term that exists outside of the DSM and psychiatry. That’s what neurodivergent is for many of us.

Lastly, Kassiane Asasumasu who came up with and defined neurodivergent has always meant for it to be a tool of inclusion, not exclusion. Let’s not forget that.

So, since neurodivergence includes mental health conditions, does this render neurodivergent as a term, meaningless because it’s broad?

Absolutely not.

If neurodivergent is a meaningless or pointless term because it's too broad then we would have to say the same for disabled or disability because disabled and disability is also an equally broad term yet we continue to use it and understand it.

We are also capable of understanding that even though both physical conditions, neurodevelopmental conditions, neurological conditions and mental health conditions count as disabilities, we aren’t implying that these are all the same. Therefore, we can recognise how saying mental health conditions count as neurodivergence does not mean we are saying they are the same as neurodevelopmental conditions.

I want to end with saying this:

Excluding people with mental health conditions from the neurodivergent umbrella because you don’t agree is the same as excluding asexual and intersex people from the queer or LGBTQIA+ umbrella because you don’t agree.

If you don’t like how neurodivergent includes anyone who diverges from neuronormativity including those diagnosed with a mental health conditions, I recommend making up your own term instead of trying to change the definition of exclude peopel from a term meant for us.

I beg of you to explore why you refuse to be associated with mental health conditions and whether you’re holding onto internalised ableism, sanism and stigma.

Before I introduce The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord, I would like to acknowledge that this framework which I started to develop in 2022 has been inspired, shaped, influenced by movements that have come before as well as Mad, Disabled and Neurodivergent Indigenous and Black scholars, thinkers, writers, leaders and activists. Individuals who have been imagining, creating and sharing alternative ways of understanding madness, disability and neurodivergence for decades. You can find a list honouring the works of some of these individuals at the end of this article alongside writings from the Mad community. Please use this list to expand your understanding of neurodiversity and to shift your understanding of altered states, hearing voices, madness and what we deem “normal”.

This was originally posted on my website.

The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord is an attempt to offer an alternative to diagnostic categories as well as an opportunity to understand neurodiversity outside of the pathology paradigm. It’s about acknowledging these differences and experiences as a part of being human instead of being a mentally ill or disordered human.

Consider the Neurodiversity Smorgasbord as a way to understand our unique profile, or plate, of individual differences beyond the DSM.

You might be wondering why we need a trait based approach to understanding neurodiversity; an alternative framework when we already have diagnostic labels.

Perhaps my own story will explain why the neurodiversity smorgasbord is so important in discussing human differences that don't rely on explaining said differences as a mental illness or disorder.

I was diagnosed when I was 8 years old in 2000. I was told I had a disease and an illness and that there was something wrong me, I was taught that I needed to be fixed, treated and cured. I was taught that I wasn't normal, I was abnormal in the worst possible way. I was chemically restrained with psychiatric medication from age 8 to 20 and I was taught to hate myself by the people around me - because of the Autism. In fact, I overdosed on my medication at only 11 years old because I thought if I took all my medication (anti-psychotics and stimulants) at once, I would "get better" quicker.

It wasn't a gift of understanding as many experience these days because the lens I was taught to view Autism and ADHD was through the pathology paradigm - as a disease, illness and disorder. That's why this lens is so important because we deserve to have access to an alternative understanding of our differences, traits and altered states instead of relying on the single narrative that they’re a deficit, disorder or sign of an illness.

Even though our understanding of Autism and ADHD isn't taught as a disease or illness as much these days, other human differences are still seen and taught as a disease, illness and disorder. And obviously, people deserve an alternative narrative, people deserve to not see their differences or altered states as an illness or disorder, to see it in a different way than how it's taught by psychiatry and psychology.

That's why understanding neurodiversity outside of diagnostic labels is important. Not just for Autism or ADHD but for those who experience altered states like mania or dissociation, those who hear voices or experience psychosis, those who are Plurals and Systems and so many more.

I wouldn't have the level of acceptance or understanding of myself that I do now if I wasn't introduced to neurodiversity or the socio-political term, neurodivergent or madness or even, Indigenous understandings of altered states and hearing voices.

I would be stuck if I only listened to the narrative of psychiatry and the DSM.

If you’re wondering why I picked a smorgasbord of all things, it was inspired by the relationship smorgasbord; a concept that explains how every relationship is unique and made up of different aspects, roles and goals. Instead of defining a relationship as strictly platonic or strictly romantic, it allows individuals to move away from labels and be specific. I believe this applies to neurodiversity. Instead of defining individuals by diagnostic labels, we want to be specific and acknowledge each person’s unique differences and traits.

If we’re rolling with the analogy of a smorgasbord, there are a lot of different ingredients that make up the diversity of our minds. You could say each individual is a plate of various ingredients and tasty treats. Each of us are our own unique combination of ingredients and there are infinite combinations of ingredients. There are so many variations of ingredients too. For example, imagine cheese as communication differences - there are many ways to communicate as there are many cheeses. Some of us might have Parmesan on our plate, some of us might have tripe Brie, some of us might have cheddar and many of us might even have a cheese board, a combination of cheeses. In other words, a combination of communication differences. Many of us might have an ingredient or five that’s common with a lot of people while some of us have ingredients that are less common. Some of us might have ingredients in common but perhaps prepared a different way. And some of us have ingredients that people look down upon, that they judge, like pineapple on pizza.

I would like to share five reasons why The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord may be helpful and beneficial for everyone and especially, our fight for neuroinclusion:

We deserve to understand ourselves and each other beyond the DSM.

We deserve to understand neurodiversity as well as our differences without relying on the DSM and diagnostic labels. We deserve to name and assign our own meanings to our differences, traits and altered states instead of relying on the single narrative that they’re a deficit, disorder or sign of an illness.

“Psychiatric diagnoses are not neutral, objective or inevitable ways of viewing ourselves and making sense of our experiences and suffering. They’re one specific way and they’re often applied in ways that maintain existing power structures.”

— Candice Alaska

For too long, individuals have been denied the ability to define their own experiences, limited by a paradigm that only offers meaning rooted in pathology and disease. Western psychiatry has controlled the language we use to describe our differences, altered states and experiences - only offering us any chance of understanding through diagnoses. In fact, our differences, our altered states, our experiences are often only validated or seen as real if we have a diagnosis. As if our experiences or differences don’t exist unless they fit into a made up box. For example, experiences of voice hearing or plurality or being a System can’t be described, captured or defined by a diagnosis. As someone who hears voices, diagnoses like psychosis or schizophrenia don’t describe my experiences yet my experiences still exist.

It is crucial that we have the opportunity to learn about our individual differences without relying on socially constructed diagnostic labels that may or may not describe someone’s experiences completely or accurately.

We need to understand altered states as a part of the rich tapestry of being human.

Instead of pathologising altered states or defaulting to viewing altered states as a pathology or illness, we should recognise altered states as a part of the human experience. Recognising altered states as a human experience allows each person to define their altered states and make their own meaning out of their altered states. Psychosis, for example, is an altered state and while psychosis can be scary and distressing for some, it doesn’t match the lived experience of every individual who experiences psychosis. Dissociation, again, is a spectrum from everyday experiences like day dreaming to experiences that are more distressing or disabling upon an individual.

There are other cultures who hold different meanings surrounding these altered states but Western psychiatry provides a single, limited meaning of altered states - mental illness. If we seek to only understand altered states within the context of the DSM and mental illness, we are assigning a single meaning to these states.

“While psychiatry only perceives conditions of madness like extreme states as symptoms of sickness, the Mad community, and many cultures across the globe, can understand them as enlightening, transformative, and transcendental experiences.”

— Derrick Quevedo

We need to understand how hearing voices is a human experience and response.

If neurodiversity refers to the different ways that we interact with and experience the world around us, hearing voices surely counts as a unique way of experiencing the world. While Western psychiatry frames voice hearing as a symptom of an illness, this doesn’t accurately represent the experience of voice hearing across history and cultures.

In many cultures, voice hearing has spiritual, cultural and ancestral significance. As a result, they see their voices as helpful, positive, calming, or simply the norm. For some Indigenous people here in so-called Australia, hearing voices is seen as a normal cultural experience in certain contexts. In New Zealand, some voice hearing experiences are explained by Kaitiaki; a spiritual guardian.

There are many other cultures where individuals have different relationships with their voices. Even within Western society, individuals have different relationships with their voices where the voices aren’t negative, scary or distressing. We continue to assume hearing voices is a sign of an illness or disorder but that just isn’t the case for everyone.

“There is nothing inherently, ontologically, transhistorically pathological about hearing voices.”

— La Marr Jurelle Bruce in How To Go Mad Without Losing Your Mind: Madness and Black Radical Creativity

In fact, voice hearing is a more common human experience than we realise. The Hearing Voices Movement has continuously advocated for us to understand voices as a human response instead of an illness. As Understanding Voices explains, we all have the capacity for hearing voices but how, when, where and why we may experience voices differs.

If we can recognise voice hearing as a human experience, we are giving each individual the autonomy to make sense and meaning of their own experience.

We need to recognise plurality as a human experience and spectrum.

I would like to propose that plurality, the experience of being many within one bodymind, is another unique way of interacting with and experiencing the world. Plurality, which Meg John-Barker describes as “an umbrella term for any way in which people experience themselves as different selves, parts, or states at different times” is a part of neurodiversity.

It’s another way to exist in this world that is neither wrong or right, it just is.

“There’s a theory about the ‘self’ which states that who you are is not a fixed thing, like a rock or a plant. It’s a unique dynamic. That ‘self’ is what emerges in relationship with another. So each ‘self’ in each setting, each relationship, is slightly unique, and has aspects that may differ from all others.”

— Sarah K Reece

This is a part of the plurality spectrum that almost every one of us can relate to. If you ever feel like a different person, if you ever have to switch roles depending on the context, if you feel like there’s parts of you, if you believe there’s different aspects of yourself - all of these can be considered plural experiences. While not all of us will have permanent or continuous experiences of being many within one bodymind or identify as a System, many of us (singlets included) will have plural experiences throughout our lives.

If we can see plurality as a part of neurodiversity, another way of existing in this world, maybe we can start to see it as another difference to respect, affirm, support and accommodate - without question.

“Plurality challenges the dominant western societal conceptualization of personhood as single & autonomous - it queers how our bodies are seen as an extension of ourselves, how our bodies are used to express ourselves, how our bodies are seen as representative of ourselves.”

— The Ring System

Identifying and understanding someone’s unique profile of differences allows a more individual approach to support and accommodations.

I believe identifying a person’s unique profile (or plate) or differences, traits or altered states gives us a better opportunity at identifying specific accommodations and supports. This isn’t just helpful for therapists, allied health professionals or coaches but employers too. Instead of relying on an individual to disclose a diagnosis, we can simply acknowledge the existence of human differences and adapt, adjust and design our workplaces, classrooms and environments accordingly.

I genuinely believe that we can identify our supports, our differences, our needs and our challenges without relying on a diagnosis to communicate them. I can describe and name my altered states without using a diagnosis. I can discuss my plural experiences without using the terms, OSDD or DID, that don’t describe my experiences anyway. I can discuss the way I pay attention, the way I process information, the way I communicate or my sensory needs without relying on a diagnosis.

“I don’t need to rely on the DSM and diagnostic labels to justify or explain how I am human.”

- Sonny Jane Wise

After all, if you’ve met one Autistic person, you’ve met one Autistic person and this applies to every diagnosis, every form of neurodivergence and really, every individual. Sure, we can understand a diagnosis but I don’t believe a diagnosis allows us to really understand an individual.

Yes, we currently rely on the DSM and the language of psychiatry to get our needs met, to receive support and to access accommodations. While I don’t see that changing any time soon, I want to imagine an alternative way of understanding neurodiversity outside of the DSM. I have to imagine a future where we don’t need to disclose a diagnosis in order for people to take our needs and differences seriously. I need to imagine a future where we can just explain the way we function and it was understood and respected because hey, that’s neurodiversity.

Can you see the potential of The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord yet?

Even if you don’t see the potential of this particular framework, I hope you can see the desperate need for understanding neurodiversity beyond the DSM. At the very least, I hope you can see a future where we have access to language that describe our differences outside of diagnostic labels. If I could wish for one thing though? I wish for The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord to be an opportunity for people to move away from viewing plurality, hearing voices and altered states as mental illnesses and instead, as human differences and experiences. If the neurodiversity space can recognise these as a part of neurodiversity and include them within our fight for neuroinclusion, I’ll consider it a win.

I just don’t want anyone to be left behind, I guess.

So… welcome to The Neurodiversity Smorgasbord.

Firstly, we need to understand how and why neurodivergent is a socio-political term. When we say a term is socio-political, we are acknowledging the social and political factors and dynamics at play - oppression, privilege, inequality, exclusion and more. What does this have to do with neurodivergent? Neurodivergent is a social and political term.

Neurodivergent names a social position - individuals who are marginalised, pathologised, oppressed, punished and labelled as mentally ill or disordered for functioning in a way that diverges from neuronormativity; an oppressive system that believes there is a right or superior way to function.

As Dieuwertje Dyi Huijg writes in The Neurodiversity Reader:

“neurodivergent is “a category of power relations and social hierarchisation”.

And yet, many people are unaware of this or when made aware, are hesitant to refer to it as such. It begs the question of why, which brings me to the co-opting of neurodivergent by psychiatry, psychology and ultimately, the pathology paradigm.

Co-opting refers to adopting or taking something for one’s own use or purpose. As Bruce Levine in Mad In America writes: “co-optation here refers to the process by which a powerful institution attempts to preserve its control by incorporating a popular element of a radical movement while burying the radical ideology of that movement.”

There is a long history of psychiatry co-opting radical terms and movements. One prime example is the co-opting of peer support. Peer support has always been a non-hierarchical and non-carceral approach with the aim to provide alternatives to the medical model. However, the co-opting of peer support has led to peer support becoming immeshed within the medical model and for lack of a better term, psychiatry-washed.

Not only has peer support become regulated and standardised in some countries like the US but the original role of peer supporters has changed from its original grassroots within mental health settings. Peer supporters have become responsible for reporting their clients’ behaviours to clinicians, answering to clinicians as well as both enforcing compliance with treatment. Instead of peer support being a non-hierarchal partnership as it was always meant to be, peer support workers have become another link in the chain of compliance.

That’s what happens when psychiatry co-opts. It takes something radical and political, ignores its roots and turns it into something else to fit its own purpose and language. And we can see the same thing happening with neurodivergent.

Both medicine, psychiatry and psychology have taken neurodivergent to describe a biological reality rather than a social reality - changing the definition and intent of neurodivergent to fit the purpose of the pathology paradigm. So much so that many believe psychiatrists and psychologists to be the arbitrator of what is or isn't neurodivergent but psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be the arbitrator of a socio-political identity.

Another example of the medical co-opting of neurodivergent is the use of “neurodivergent condition” or using the phrase, “diagnosed as neurodivergent” which has become accepted terminology within the neurodivergent community. The thing is, you cannot be diagnosed with a socio-political identity yet we have come to accept this because of the co-opting. We do not know any better because many of us have been taught to view neurodivergent as another medical or clinical term.

We have to remember that neurodivergent is neither a medical or clinical term but a social and political one.

Another way that neurodivergent has been co-opted is by reducing neurodivergent to structural or biological differences in the brain and defining neurodivergent as diverging from the stock standard brain. It is neurodiversity 101 that every single brain is different so there is no stock standard brain to even diverge from; neurodivergent is about diverging from neuronormativity.

Whether we have structural differences or not isn’t the point, it is about how oppressive systems label the way we function, our very existence, as mentally ill, disordered or abnormal due to assumptions around what is the right or superior way to function. It’s about the way we function and how it diverges from neuronormativity - whether it can be proved with structural brain differences or not.

The problem is, when we define neurodivergent by structural or biological differences, we end up excluding individuals from a term that was meant for them even if they happen to diverge from neuronormativity. In addition to the exclusion of individuals, we end up removing the focus from neuronormativity. If I may offer a comparison, imagine if we talked about gender and sexuality without acknowledging cisheteronormativity.

This is something that really needs to change if we want to challenge neuronormativity and shift away from the pathology paradigm. To be clear, I’m not asking psychiatry and psychology to stop talking about neurodivergence but I am asking professionals, academics and researchers to be mindful of how they both talk and use neurodivergent. Most importantly, I am asking for neurodivergent to be respected as a socio-political term.

Whatever the reason, many people make new year resolutions and if we do, we need to make sure we don’t reinforce neuronormative expectations or standards onto ourselves.

There is no one right timeline that we have to follow.

I’ve made “finally get my driver’s licence” my new year resolution many times and I’m now 31 without a driver’s licence. I’m not embarrassed (anymore) because I’ve gotten to the point where I recognise there is no single right timelime.

I've accepted that my disabilities and neurodivergence make driving so much more challenging for me and I do not need a driver's licence to "be an adult". I might get my licence eventually but I haven’t put a deadline on it because it’ll happen (or not happen) according to my own timeline, whenever that may be.

I feel like we can apply this to a lot of resolutions.

If your resolution is to go to the gym every day, are you forcing yourself into a timeline that isn’t sustainable and forgiving of inconsistency? If your resolution is to write a book, are you considering that writing can be and is allowed to be inconsistent? If your resolution is to post regularly on social media, are you reminding yourself that your regular may look different to someone else’s regular?

Be flexible with your deadlines.

Be flexible with your timelines.

Remember that eating looks different for everyone.

I can’t begin to express the number of times I’ve seen “eat healthier” as a new year resolution. I don’t believe it’s a bad thing to want to eat to nourish your body and mind but because of diet culture and weight stigma, our understanding of what eating healthily looks like is rooted in harmful myths, bias, thinness as an ideal and of course, neuronormativity.

For neurodivergent people, our relationship with food including eating and cooking looks different because it’s impacted by our sensory differences, executive functioning differences, interoceptive differences, masking, burnout and more.

This means how Western society defines healthy eating may not apply to us so we need to make sure we don’t reinforce a narrow understanding of “eating healthily” onto our goals.

I'll be the first to admit that what and how I eat certainly doesn't fit into Western society's idea of healthy eating but it's healthy for me.

I use food as a source of sensory input and stimulation which means I snack a lot - it’s healthy for me because I’m meeting my needs. I also eat the same food over and over again to accommodate my sensory differences even though for other people, that wouldn’t be their definition of healthy. I rely on takeaway and quick meals you can put in the oven or microwave because otherwise I won't eat at all.

It's healthy for me.

If you’re going to make resolutions when it comes to food, make sure you define “eating healthily” by what meets your needs and benefits you.

Explore what success means and looks like for you.

Success is defined as meeting a defined set of expectations or the achievement of a purpose. Unfortunately, we often define success by neuronormative expectations and purposes. We often define success by getting a full time job, climbing the career ladder, getting a PhD or buying a home. And for many people including neurodivergent and disabled people, these can be unattainable for some, unsustainable for many.

And for many of us, it simply isn’t our definition of success.

I used to think my definition of success was getting my driver’s licence and a PhD, becoming an expert on a topic where everyone knew who I was, securing a full time job and getting married before I retire with thousands of dollars in the bank. While I wouldn’t mind a few of them happening, I wouldn’t say I’m unsuccessful if I don’t achieve it.

I define success differently because many of those things are either unsustainable for me or they don’t align in what I find valuable or meaningful. And that’s the point - success is determined by achieving a purpose but only an individual can determine the purpose; only an individual can determine what is meaningful to them.

We do not need to have the same definition of success as someone else.

If you’re someone who makes new year resolutions, remember to consider your own needs, differences, values and capacity. Do not let other people you see on social media tell you what your goals should be, do not let society tell you productivity is the most important sign of success, do not let the world force a rigid timeline onto your life.

Wanna learn more about neuronormativity? Tickets for my in-person seminar on decentering neuronormativity are available but selling quick!

Click the link to check out the list of cities I'm visiting and to register.

Our society’s emphasis on and understanding of normal has never been about what is actually normal, it has always been about what is socially acceptable as well as what is actually beneficial for capitalism. 

Normal is merely a social construct that controls individuals by enforcing a right way to function, a right way to be, a right way to exist as a human.

It’s not normal, it’s neuronormative.

As I mentioned in my first newsletter, neuronormativity is a set of norms, standards, expectations and ideals that centre certain ways of functioning as the right way to function; the superior way to function.

It is the assumption that there is a correct way to exist in this world; a correct way to think, feel, communicate, play, behave, learn and more. 

Just like cisheteronormativity believes there is a normal and superior gender and normal sexuality, just like white supremacy believes there is a normal and superior race, neuronormativity believes there is a normal and superior way to function. 

Normal is merely a social construct based on what Western society values - and society values someone who is white, cisgender, heterosexual, able bodied and able to contribute to capitalism. 

It’s why whiteness, cisheteronormativity and neuronormativity aren’t merely separate systems but a singular system based upon the idea of a socially acceptable and superior human.

It’s why neuronormativity has never been and will never be attainable for the global majority because neuronormativity is rooted in whiteness; a standard the global majority, people of colour, can never meet.

Neuronormativity is the toolkit of white supremacy, colonialism and capitalism with the DSM being the hammer that nails us into the coffin of conformity. 

We cannot decentre and challenge neuronormativity without challenging white supremacy and whiteness because individualism, worship of the written word, perfectionism, one right way, sense of urgency, right to comfort and binary ways of thinking are all key features of neuronormativity.

It's evident in how neuronormativity emphasises the idea that there is one right way to function and punishes anyone who diverges from this one right way.

There is one right way to perceive time; there is one right way to communicate; there is one right way to pay attention; there is one right way to learn; there is one right way to grieve, there is one right way to experience empathy; there is one right way to feel; there is one right way to respond to trauma. 

If you don’t function according to this one right way, you’re labelled with deficits; you're labelled with a disorder; you're seen as mentally ill.

If you don’t function according to this one right way, Western society assumes there must be something wrong with your brain.

I mean, the addition of prolonged grief disorder to the DSM is a key example of this. As soon as how someone grieves goes against how Western society wants us and expects us to grieve, it becomes a disorder.

As soon as grief impacts someone’s ability to contribute to capitalism because they cannot work during their period of grief, it becomes a disorder.

It isn't that grieving for too long is a sign of illness, it’s a sign that you’re no longer functioning according to how Western society wants you to function. 

I could go on and on about this but I won't because that's what my next book is for.

I just hope this newsletter is a conversation starter, a thought provoker.

We need everyone to identify, unpack and decenter neuronormativity so we can move away from labelling people as disordered and start to accept all the different ways that people function, exist and respond.

You can learn more about neuronormativity and how neurodivergent people diverge from neuronormativity by reading my book, We're All Neurodiverse.

As a result, I've become passionate about unpacking neuronormativity because I simply cannot understand why we label certain things as a deficit or disorder. I've even written a very large chapter on unpacking neuronormativity in my upcoming book, We're All Neurodiverse but for me, it just isn't enough.

So I’m excited to announce that I am now starting a regular newsletter on Decentering Neuronormativity, here on Substack and LinkedIn because I believe we need more conversation around neuronormativity.

I genuinely believe we cannot create a neurodiversity affirming society or fight for neuroinclusion without unpacking and decentering neuronormativity.

If you haven’t heard about neuronormativity before, neurormativity is a set of norms, standards, expectations and ideals that centre a particular way of functioning as the right way to function.

It is the assumption that there is a correct way to exist in this world; a correct way to think, feel, communicate, play, behave and more.

These neuronormative ideals, standards and expectations are enforced and normalised everywhere; from our relationships with each other and ourselves to our classrooms and workplaces.

And I'll go as far to say that neuronormativity disadvantages everyone including neurotypical people.

Just a couple of examples of how neuronormativity shows up:

• Expecting individuals to learn or gain knowledge by reading or writing.

• Associating low empathy with having low morals or values.

• Expecting everyone to communicate using spoken communication.

• Labelling hearing voices as a sign of illness.

• Enforcing linear clock time and a 9 to 5 work schedule.

Neuronormativity is centered in such a way that when we diverge from neuronormativity and how society expects us to function, we are labelled as having a disorder; we are seen as abnormal, unwell or having deficits.

I don’t believe we can create a neuronclusive society and make room for all the different ways we function and exist unless we start to decenter neuronormativity.

In order to decenter neuronormativity, we need to start identifying it and unpacking it but we can’t do that without talking about it.

I hope this newsletter can be a spark for more discussions around neuronormativity and hopefully, we can begin to decenter neuronormativity.

Share Decentering Neuronormativity