Read on Twitter
I see a lot of people using "neurodivergent" to mean only "autistic" or making the distinction acquired differences vs. ones you're born with.
2 things.
a - this is not how the word was coined (see link).
b - I'd argue that this distinction is harmful.
https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa-from-the-actual-coiner-of-neurodivergent
2 things.
a - this is not how the word was coined (see link).
b - I'd argue that this distinction is harmful.
https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa-from-the-actual-coiner-of-neurodivergent
for one thing, turning the meaning of a political word around like this will just mean we're no longer understanding each other. this is a recipe for wearing everyone's nerves down for absolutely no reason.
but apart from that...
but apart from that...
I want you to think about what this distinction actually DOES.
what does anyone gain from saying "well MY differences I was born with, but YOURS came later"?
what does anyone gain from saying "well MY differences I was born with, but YOURS came later"?
I will talk about problems with actually MAKING that distinction later.
first, let's look at what that distinction actually provides.
we actually have a good idea because we've been having this discussion in the queer community for several decades.
first, let's look at what that distinction actually provides.
we actually have a good idea because we've been having this discussion in the queer community for several decades.
what it does is create an artificial hierarchy between people who "can't help it", who "just are like this", who are "healthy, just different", who are "not sick"...
... and the people who are.
it is medicalising and pathologising.
... and the people who are.
it is medicalising and pathologising.
now I want you to think about what you can USE this distinction for.
is there any actually constructive way to use it?
is there any actually constructive way to use it?
I'd argue that there isn't.
all you can do with it is tell others to shut up because their experiences are less real and less important than yours.
it's a tool of exclusion and nothing else.
all you can do with it is tell others to shut up because their experiences are less real and less important than yours.
it's a tool of exclusion and nothing else.
exclusion like this is always, always bad.
you may think it's a tool to give marginalised voices the space to be heard. a tool to make spaces where they're safe.
but it's not. you cannot uplift some voices by shutting down others.
you may think it's a tool to give marginalised voices the space to be heard. a tool to make spaces where they're safe.
but it's not. you cannot uplift some voices by shutting down others.
because once you start doing this, the circle of acceptable voices gets smaller and smaller.
everyone just gets pissed and nobody gets actual support.
if you want to uplift voices and communities, you have to support them, create safe and inclusive spaces, not police them.
everyone just gets pissed and nobody gets actual support.
if you want to uplift voices and communities, you have to support them, create safe and inclusive spaces, not police them.
especially in regards to autistic communities, there is a LOT of lateral ableism going on, especially towards people with mental illnesses that are either acquired or perceived as acquired (more to that later).
especially towards personality disordered people.
especially towards personality disordered people.
people who have narcissistic, borderline, antisocial, schizotypical, histrionic or other personality disorders -
we're violently kicked out of autistic spaces because they don't want us there. we're stigmatised as abusiers and fakers, as toxic and unreliable, bad representation.
we're violently kicked out of autistic spaces because they don't want us there. we're stigmatised as abusiers and fakers, as toxic and unreliable, bad representation.
and even if that's not what you want by policing identities and political terms like that, this is WHAT YOU WILL DO. it is the inevitable consequence of this kind of distinction.
you're creating tools to remove people who are considered too abnormal, too sick, too damaged.
you're creating tools to remove people who are considered too abnormal, too sick, too damaged.
I can say that with confidence because I've been on the receiving end of that. don't try to tell me I'm wrong. I fucking KNOW.
furthermore, this distinction contributes to stigma AND to dismissiveness.
stigma: "well you're just sick", "your condition isn't normal".
dismissiveness: "you were born normal, you don't know what it's like to have always been different", "you can get better, I can't".
stigma: "well you're just sick", "your condition isn't normal".
dismissiveness: "you were born normal, you don't know what it's like to have always been different", "you can get better, I can't".
now before bringing this ted talk to a close, I'll just describe some examples to show how this distinction falls apart in reality.
- PTSD is very much, without a doubt, an acquired neurodivergence.
and yet, I will never know what it's like not to have PTSD. I'll never experience the world without trauma weighing me down. to a certain degree I can get better, but I can never be free of it.
and yet, I will never know what it's like not to have PTSD. I'll never experience the world without trauma weighing me down. to a certain degree I can get better, but I can never be free of it.
- personality disorders have a poorly researched genetic component. they are strongly related to trauma, but it is not 100% overlap, and tends to run in families, even without social exposure to the biological family.
so are they acquired or are you born with them?
so are they acquired or are you born with them?
- when someone has cerebral palsy from lack of oxygen as a birth, are they born with it or is it acquired?
what if the brain injury causing the disability happened a day later?
a year?
ten years?
what if the brain injury causing the disability happened a day later?
a year?
ten years?
- in many cases it is impossible to tell. would a traumatised plural system still be plural without trauma?
does this make any practical difference?
does this make any practical difference?
is it constructive to have a permanent, acquired difference categorised as pathological?
why should we be excluded from a movement that's about normalising differences and allowing people to be comfortable with and even proud of having an atypically functioning brain?
why should we be excluded from a movement that's about normalising differences and allowing people to be comfortable with and even proud of having an atypically functioning brain?
how on earth are people supposed to decide which it is, acquired or endogenous?
it's just going to end with a list of Acceptable conditions, and of Acceptable reasons for some of the others.
it's just going to end with a list of Acceptable conditions, and of Acceptable reasons for some of the others.
we do have this problem in some queer identities as well.
would i be asexual and aromantic without trauma? I doubt it.
would I be nonbinary without trauma? which of the genders of my headmates would I have if those headmates didn't exist?
why the fuck is this important?
would i be asexual and aromantic without trauma? I doubt it.
would I be nonbinary without trauma? which of the genders of my headmates would I have if those headmates didn't exist?
why the fuck is this important?
I don't believe anything good can come from making this distinction.
and even so, taking a well-established political term and redefining it to be LESS inclusive is hurtful, harmful and needlessly divisive. maybe just don't.
and even so, taking a well-established political term and redefining it to be LESS inclusive is hurtful, harmful and needlessly divisive. maybe just don't.
