Autistic art depicting the natural diversity of human minds

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural
Attributes Age Disability Genetics Hair color Hair texture Height Looks Size Language Racism Nordicism Skin color Black White Rank Caste Class Religion Sex Sexual orientation
Social Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-drug addicts Anti-homelessness Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Cronyism Elitism Ephebiphobia Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Transphobia Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Ahmadiyya Atheism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Catholicism Christianity post–Cold War era Druze Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Jehovah's Witnesses Judaism Persecution LDS or Mormon Neopaganism non-Muslims Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox Copts Protestantism Rastafari Sikhs Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national African Albanian Arab Armenian Azerbaijani Catalan Chechen Chinese Croat Filipino Finnish Fulani Georgian Greek Haitian Hazara Hispanic Hungarian Igbo Indian Canadian and US indigenous peoples Iranian Irish Israeli Italian Japanese Jewish Korean Kurdish Malay Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Pakistani Palestinian Pashtun Polish Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Serb Slavic Somali Tatar Thai Tibetan Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese
Manifestations Blood libel Bullying online Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog-whistle politics Eliminationism Economic Education Employment Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime LGBT Hate group Hate speech online Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Lavender scare Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Persecution Pogrom Purge Red Scare Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sex-selective abortion Slavery Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against men Violence against women White flight White power music Wife selling Witch-hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Ethnocracy Ethnopluralism Gender pay gap Gender roles Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Jim Crow laws Ketuanan Melayu Law for Protection of the Nation McCarthyism MSM blood donation restrictions Nonpersons Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) Nuremberg Laws One-drop rule Racial quota Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression White Australia policy
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity training Empowerment Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex rights LGBT rights Masculism Multiculturalism Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms Bias Christian privilege Civil liberties Dehumanization Diversity Ethnic penalty Eugenics Heteronormativity Internalized oppression Intersectionality Male privilege Masculism Medical model of disability autism Multiculturalism Net bias Neurodiversity Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news Racism by country Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social exclusion Social model of disability Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk White privilege Woke
v t e

Neurodiversity, or ND, refers to variations in the human brain and cognition, for instance in sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions.^[1] It was coined in 1998 by sociologist Judy Singer, who helped popularize the concept along with journalist Harvey Blume,^[1] and situates human cognitive variation in the context of biodiversity and the politics of minority groups.^[2][3] This view arose out of the autism rights movement, as a challenge to prevailing views that certain things currently classified as neurodevelopmental disorders are inherently pathological. It builds on the social model of disability, in which disability arises out of societal barriers interacting with individual differences, rather than people being disabled simply as a result of having impairments. Some neurodiversity advocates and researchers, notably Judy Singer and Patrick Dwyer, argue that the neurodiversity paradigm is the middle ground between strong medical model and strong social model.^[4][5][6] The subsequent neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among disability advocates, with opponents arguing it risks downplaying the suffering associated with some disabilities, and calls for the acceptance of things some would wish to see treated.^{[7][8][9][10][11]} Autistic self-advocate and researcher Ari Ne'eman, one of the major advocates in the neurodiversity movement, suggested a trait-based approach, meaning that elements of the medical (or pathology) model can be applied in treating certain traits, behaviors, or conditions that are intrinsically harmful (e.g. self-injury behaviors, speech-language impairments, or other co-occurring health conditions), whereas neurodiversity approaches can be applied to non-harmful or adaptive autistic traits (e.g. stimming, intense interests) of the same individual.^[12][13] Furthermore, in recent years, there have been developments of neurodiversity-affirming interventions and reforms of some interventions.^[14][15]

History

The word neurodiversity is attributed to Judy Singer, a social scientist who has described herself as "likely somewhere on the autistic spectrum."^[16] She used the term in her sociology honours thesis published in 1999,^[17][16] drawing on discussions on the InLv mailing list with others including American journalist and writer Harvey Blume,^[18] whose September 30, 1998, article in The Atlantic was the first to use the term in print.^[19] The term represented a move away from previous "mother-blaming" theories about the cause of autism.^[20]

Some authors^[21][22] also credit the earlier work of autistic advocate Jim Sinclair in advancing the concept of neurodiversity. Sinclair was a principal early organizer of the international online autism community. Sinclair's 1993 speech, "Don't mourn for us", emphasized autism as a way of being: "It is not possible to separate the person from the autism."^[23] In a New York Times piece written by Blume on June 30, 1997, Blume described the foundation of neurodiversity using the term "neurological pluralism".^[24] Blume was an early advocate who predicted the role the Internet would play in fostering the international neurodiversity movement.^[25]

In recent years the concept of neurodiversity is increasingly being taken on board by scientists,^[26][27] recognising that autism researchers have sometimes been too ready to interpret differences as deficits,^[28][29] that there are ethical risks and may be practical risks in reducing or suppressing autistic traits in interventions. Some researchers are concerned about uncertain and possible risks that some interventions may promote excessive camouflaging (e.g. imitating neurotypical traits and behaviors, masking autistic traits), as higher levels of camouflaging are generally associated with poorer mental health outcomes among autistic people in numerous recent studies, and perhaps even suicidality.^{[30][31][32][15][33]} Also, some advocates and researchers argue that a medicalising approach can contribute to stigma^[34] and that the persistent focus on biological research in autism^[35] is at odds with the priorities of those in the autism community.^[36][37]

Within disability rights movements

The neurodiversity paradigm was developed and embraced first by autistic people.^[38][39] Subsequently, it was applied to other neurodevelopmental and/or neuropsychiatric conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental speech disorders, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyspraxia,^[40] dyscalculia, dysnomia, intellectual disability and Tourette syndrome,^[39][41]. Broader conceptualizations include mental illnesses such as schizophrenia,^[6][42] bipolar disorder,^[43] schizoaffective disorder, and, somewhat more controversially, personality disorders such as antisocial personality disorder.^[44] Neurodiversity advocates denounce the framing of neurodevelopmental disorders as requiring medical intervention to "cure" or "fix" them, and instead promote support systems such as inclusion-focused services, accommodations, communication and assistive technologies, occupational training, and independent living support.^[14][45] The intention is for individuals to receive support that honours authentic forms of human diversity, self-expression, and being, rather than treatment which coerces or forces them to adopt normative ideas of normality, or to conform to a clinical ideal.^{[46][better source needed]}

Proponents of neurodiversity strive to reconceptualize autism and related conditions in society by the following measures: acknowledging that neurodiversity does not require a cure; changing the language from the current "condition, disease, disorder, or illness"-based nomenclature; "broadening the understanding of healthy or independent living"; acknowledging new types of autonomy; and giving non-neurotypical individuals more control over their treatment, including the type, timing, and whether there should be treatment at all.^[22][6]

A 2009 study^[47] separated 27 students (with autism, dyslexia, developmental coordination disorder, ADHD, and stroke), into two categories of self-view: "A 'difference' view—where neurodiversity was seen as a difference incorporating a set of strengths and weaknesses, or a 'medical/deficit' view—where neurodiversity was seen as a disadvantageous medical condition." They found that, although all of the students reported uniformly difficult schooling careers involving exclusion, abuse, and bullying, those who viewed themselves from a different view (41% of the study cohort) "Indicated higher academic self-esteem and confidence in their abilities and many (73%) expressed considerable career ambitions with positive and clear goals."^[47] Many of these students reported gaining this view of themselves through contact with neurodiversity advocates in online support groups.^[47]

A 2013 online survey, which aimed to assess conceptions of autism and neurodiversity, found that "A deficit-as-difference conception of autism suggests the importance of harnessing autistic traits in developmentally beneficial ways, transcending a false dichotomy between celebrating differences and ameliorating deficit."^[48]

Controversy

The neurodiversity paradigm is controversial in autism advocacy.^[38] The dominant paradigm is one which pathologizes human brains that diverge from those considered typical. From this perspective, these brains have medical conditions which should be treated.^[49]

A common criticism is that the neurodiversity paradigm is too widely encompassing and that its conception should exclude those whose functioning is more severely impaired.^[38][50] Autistic advocate and interdisciplinary educator Nick Walker offers the distinction that neurodivergences refer specifically to "pervasive neurocognitive differences" that are "intimately related to the formation and constitution of the self," in contrast to medical conditions such as epilepsy.^[6]

Neurodiversity advocate John Elder Robison argues that the disabilities and strengths conferred by neurological differences may be mutually inseparable. "When 99 neurologically identical people fail to solve a problem, it's often the 1% fellow who's different who holds the key. Yet that person may be disabled or disadvantaged most or all of the time. To neurodiversity proponents, people are disabled because they are at the edges of the bell curve, not because they are sick or broken."^[51]

"Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement", a 2020 review, argued two basic observations:

• Many people who do not have an autism diagnosis have autistic traits. This was known by researchers as the "broader autism phenotype". So, there was no clear bimodal distribution separating people with and without autism. In reality there were not two distinct populations, one "neurotypical" and one "neurodivergent".^[52]
• "Neurotypical" was a dubious construct, because there was nobody who could be considered truly neurotypical. There was no such standard for the human brain.^[52]

Additionally, as the term neurotypical refers to not having a developmental disorder; it could be argued that one is neurodivergent when they have been born without a neurodevelopmental disorder. Since most people with mental illnesses are born without a developmental disorder, they are considered predominantly neurotypical from birth. Mental illness could be triggered by environmental causes or traumatic events in one's lifetime, whereas developmental disorders are present at birth and continue into adulthood.

In the media

The increase of representation of the neurodiversity movement in the media came about with changes in the technology of the media platforms themselves.^[53] The recent addition of text-based options on various social media sites allow disabled users to communicate, enjoy, and share at a more accessible rate.^[53] Social media has a two-fold benefit to the neurodiverse community. It can help spread awareness and pioneer the neurodiversity movement, and it can also allow members of the communities themselves to connect.^[54][55]

Social media as connecting platform

Media platforms allow the connection of individuals of similar backgrounds to find a community of support with one another.^[54] Online networking and connections allows for the user to decide their level of comfort with interactions, and allow them to retain control of a relationship with another user. For the neurodiverse community, the use of social media to create relationships has proven a useful tool for those with difficulty in social situations.^[56] By connecting neurodiverse users, media platforms are to provide 'safe spaces' that is helpful in the making of relationships.^[56] Some media developers, such as Divyanka Kapoor, have taken a step further and created platforms such as "Blossom" which are designed specifically to connect neurodiverse users and families.^[57] Platforms such a Blossom remove the external pressure for neurotypical users and allow the neurodiverse community to seek security and familiarity within a platform built especially for them.

Social media as a driving force

Another way in which media has the potential to benefit the neurodiverse community is by allowing users (especially popular influencers) to spread awareness about the neurodiversity movement.^[58] Increasing awareness about disorders, especially those often debated by non-experts such as neurodiversity, has shown to increase the amount of factual information spread.^[58] The spread of information through social media exposure can assist the neurodiversity movement in educating the public about understanding disabilities such as autism and sifting out misinformation.^[55] By sharing neurodiverse experiences from a first hand perspective, media influencers have power to educate the public as well as destigmatize certain disorders.^[58] As negative portrayals of neurodiversity have an obstructive impact on members the community, changing the narrative through social media exposure is a tool the ND community is employing.^[59]

Challenges within media

Although representation of the neurodiverse community has grown with the help of social media platforms, those users are often criticized and misunderstood.^[60] Social media has not removed the social barriers that restrict inclusion of neurodiverse peoples. The persisting barriers in social media are deeper than the issues of accessibility. Neurodiverse users are reported to be limited to their platform to conform to the mainstream view of their disability to be seen as "authentic" users.^[60] The push for "authentic" users on the internet has grown with the use of social media itself. While the premise of sifting through ingenuine users was not a broach to the ND community, it has indirectly made it more difficult for neurodiverse users to grow platforms.^[61][60] This issue of non-disabled users evaluating the authenticity of a neurodiverse user based on stereotypes shows the battle that the neurodiversity movement has not reached its goal of inclusion.^[60]