Don’t Dismiss Neurodiversity or Neurodiverse Perspectives on Autism
As part of a neurodiverse family and working in the field of SEN (Special Educational Needs) this article – Why the Neurodiversity Movement Has Become Harmful by Moheb Costandi, a molecular and developmental neurobiologist, the author of Body Am I (2024) didn’t chime with what we believe or are trying to achieve at school.
The article presents an overly reductive and dismissive view of the neurodiversity paradigm and its aims. The neurodiversity movement arose as a social justice response to the systemic marginalization and discrimination that neurodivergent individuals have faced historically and continue to face in many societies. At its core, it is about recognizing neurodivergence as a natural human variation, not a disorder to be pathologized or eliminated. The movement advocates for acceptance, inclusion, accommodation and celebrating the inherent worth and equality of neurodivergent people.
Contrary to the article’s portrayal, the neurodiversity perspective does not trivialize or ignore the very real challenges and support needs that some autistic and otherwise neurodivergent people face. It simply rejects the deficit-based medical model that views neurological differences solely through a lens of deficiency and impairment requiring cure or normalization. The existence of intellectual disability, communication difficulties, self-care needs etc. are not incompatible with the neurodiversity view – it argues that those support needs should be accommodated and that the human rights of divergent people must be respected, regardless of perceived functionality level.
The claim that neurodiversity advocates are romanticising severe disability is a gross mischaracterization. The goal is to advance understanding, respect and systemic support for all neurodivergent people, not to relabel distressing impairments as mere differences to be celebrated dismissively. No serious neurodiversity proponent denies that autistic people can face very real challenges in need of appropriate services and accommodations. The point is that framing autism solely as a disorder robs neurodivergent individuals of agency, identity and human dignity.
The article disparages neurodivergent self-advocates as “militant” and “authoritarian” for advocating against coercive normalization practices like institutionalization and aversive behaviour modification therapies like ABA. Yet it fails to acknowledge the long and continuing history of human rights violations against neurodivergent people, from institutionalization and involuntary procedures to denial of bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, communication access, inclusive education and support decision-making. Concerns around these issues are entirely valid from a disability rights perspective.
Asserting one’s identity and rights is not a form of oppressing others – it is standing up against historical and ongoing oppression. The neurodiversity movement centres the voices and experiences of neurodivergent individuals themselves as experts after those voices have been systemically silenced and marginalized for decades under a pathologizing medical model.
The article’s claim that advocates reject treatment and support services is false. No credible neurodiversity stance opposes access to communication aids, skills training, therapies and other services and accommodations that an individual autonomously chooses and finds beneficial. The issue is around coercion, normalization and denial of agency. An intellectually disabled person may choose supports around communication, self-care etc. while still being accepted and valued as inherently worthy – not in need of being changed or cured.
The supposed “us vs. them” division is a mischaracterization. Many neurodiversity proponents and advocates are non-autistic parents, professionals, researchers and allies. The goal is not to demonize or exclude non-autistic/non-divergent people but to partner with them in creating a more inclusive world based on equality, understanding and respect.
Yes, the neurodiversity movement challenges societal biases and discriminatory norms. But that necessary process of consciousness-raising does not equate to oppressing others or denying support. It is advancing human rights and personhood for a vastly marginalized group.
There are, and should be, divergent views and priorities within the neurodivergent community, which is markedly diverse. But the core principles of identity affirmation, inclusion, accessibility and anti-discrimination should be unifying values that benefit all neurodivergent individuals regardless of perceived level of functionality.
The article’s dismissal of identity, self-diagnosis and self-narration is highly concerning from a human rights standpoint. Attempting to override how individuals understand and define their own neurological status is profoundly disempowering. It perpetuates a top-down, paternalistic view of neurodivergence as existing only within rigidly defined medical criteria – rather than seeing the expertise and agency of neurodivergent individuals themselves as paramount.
While concerns around potentially missed clinical support needs are understandable, they do not justify blanket rejection of self-identification. The priority should be expanding access to affirmative resources and community supports for all neurodivergent individuals, not dismissing identities and lived experiences.
The article makes some valid points about the need for autism research to better include and reflect the full spectrum of autistic experience, including those with co-occurring intellectual disability. This intersectional gap is a major issue and oversight that must be addressed.
However, critiquing the philosophical and human rights tenets of the neurodiversity paradigm does nothing to address this need. In fact, neurodiversity advocates have been at the forefront of efforts to advance research informed by the authentic priorities and input of autistic people across all backgrounds – not filtered solely through a deficit lens externally applied. This is vitally important for research validity and translatability.
There are absolutely tensions and dialogues to be had around priorities, service needs, language choices and more within the neurodivergent community and among allies. Reasonable people may disagree on some points. But this does not negate the fundamental human rights grounding of the neurodiversity paradigm.
At its core, neurodiversity simply calls for the inherent humanity, equality and human dignity of divergent people to be recognized and upheld – regardless of perceived functionality levels. It demands that support needs be accommodated through inclusion, accessibility and self-directed services. And it affirms the right of neurodivergent individuals to self-narrate their experiences and identities.
To claim this framework is oppressive, militant, trivializing or harmful is simply inaccurate. The voices and priorities of all neurodivergent people – including those with significant disabilities – must be centred. But that does not negate a larger paradigm shift around human rights, personhood and justice that the neurodiversity movement represents.
The article provides a concerningly one-sided perspective that reactively dismisses this vital anti-discrimination, anti-ableism movement rather than substantively engaging with it. In a piece advocating respect for different lived experiences, it is concerning how the piece perpetuates framing neurodivergence solely through an externally imposed deficit model – ignoring the expertise and self-articulations of divergent individuals themselves.
A more balanced critique would acknowledge valid points around inclusion in research, differing support needs etc. while still recognizing the legitimacy and importance of the larger neurodiversity paradigm. Disability rights and human rights must be upheld for all neurodivergent people – not dismissed via oppositional framing, exclusion and pathologizing language that neurodiversity directly pushes back against.
Ultimately, viewing neurodivergence as a natural variation existing on a deeply diverse spectrum – rather than a binary of disorder/non-disorder – need not conflict with also recognizing complex realities around accessibility, support services and quality of life priorities. These frameworks can co-exist while respecting the self-determination and humanity of all neurodivergent people. That is the essence of the neurodiversity paradigm that merits understanding and good-faith engagement, not sweeping dismissal through a reductive and misinformed framing.
