as small as a world and as large as alone, i understood "neuroatypical" to be an umbrella...

11:47am August 22, 2014

Anonymous asked: i understood "neuroatypical" to be an umbrella term used for anyone whose brain is functioning differently than a typical brain. i asked an autistic person before using it because i wasn't sure and was told that it applied to my particular mental illness. is there a divide on this topic?

madeofpatterns:

feminaspie:

allismyells:

feminaspie:

allism-yells:

The words neurotypical and neuroatypical originated within the autistic community to mean non-autistic and autistic, respectively.

This has changed over time, as allistic people have adopted the term, and so now neuroatypical refers to anyone with an atypical neurological configuration, so I agree it’s fine for you to use it!

(For example, here’s a list of neurological disorders — anyone with any of those on this list could identify as neuroatypical.)

The term neurodivergent was then coined in it’s place to refer to people specifically with developmental disabilities.

(Developmental disabilities include things like Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, Cerebral Palsy, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, etc. Research is showing that schizophrenia, schizophrenia spectrum disorders and OCD may be developmental disabilities as well, so I feel that they should be included under this term, too.)

However, neuroatypical people are now trying to claim they have a place in the word neurodivergent and saying neurodivergent and neuroatypical are synonymous. They aren’t.

Some people use them interchangeably because neuroatypical and neurotypical can be confusing for people with certain disabilities to tell apart, and that’s fine!, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the word in all contexts.

Neurodivergent, in it’s original context, is actually really important as there are issues that affect people with developmental disabilities that do not affect people with mental illnesses and it’s necessary to have a functional word to help us talk about those things.

I hope that helps clear things up! c:

- Cap

TL; DR:

Neuroatypical can be used by anyone with atypical neurology, i.e a developmental or mental disability.

Neurodivergent is sometimes used synonymously with neuroatypical but actually refers only to those with developmental disabilities.

Allistic refers to those who are non-autistic.

Neurotypical refers to someone who falls within the range of typical neurology and is NOT synonymous with allistic.

(Please keep in mind that I am not trying to put mentally ill and developmentally disabled people against each other or say that mental illnesses are less important or anything of that nature. I am both mentally ill and developmentally disabled myself.)

i’ve been using neurodivergent as synonymous with neuroatypical because it’s less easy to confuse with neurotypical?? i’m sure this is correct but it bothers me bc i don’t like the word neuroatypical much? :(

i agree that dd people and mentally ill people face different issues but tbh i don’t see the point in having neurodivergent mean developmentally disabled when that’s already it’s own term?

Yeah but by that logic what’s the point in mentally ill being included in neurodivergent and neuroatypical when “mentally ill” is already it’s own term too? That’s three terms to describe one group of people — two of which were taken from another marginalized group.

Taking over neurodivergent too just seems unnecessary, especially when it was only coined in replacement of the other word that was already taken.

I think it’s fine to use it because it’s more accessible but the original context shouldn’t be lost and should be allowed to be used by dd folks in certain situations where mentally ill people don’t need to be included. After all, it is our word you know?

(Also if this reply sounds snarky I’m totally sorry, it isn’t meant that way at all! c:)

- Cap

because mental illness being included in “neurodivergent” makes it an umbrella term for multiple things, whereas using “neurodivergent” just to mean “developmentally disabled” seems pointless to me??

i just don’t understand why neurodivergent has to be just for dd people when it could be used to foster solidarity between all neuroatypical people instead, idk.

sorry i’m having trouble wrapping my head around this :/

Cosigned. That doesn’t make any sense. “Person with a developmental disability” or “developmentally disabled” are already perfectly good words for that.

(I don’t think that everything in the DSM ought to be described as neurodivergence, but that’s because some of what’s in the DSM is assorted stigmatized attributes that have little to do with neurology)

Um. This is all news to me and I was around when these words were starting to be used, in fact I’m one of the many people who started spontaneously using them at the same time.

Neuro-atypical did not mean autistic. It meant neurologically atypical. It meant neurologically atypical in any form whatsoever.

Same for neurodivergent.

Same for neurodiverse.

None of these terms originally only meant autistic people.

Most of these terms were coined explicitly to make it clear there were neuro-atypical people who weren’t autistic.

I don’t know where people are getting their history, but I was there for this history, and most of this looks like it was made up on the fly to explain things that don’t need explaining.

Neurodivergent vs. neurodiverse for instance, was a matter of grammar, some people were sticklers for grammar to the point they couldn’t see “neurodiverse” as an adjective describing anyone neurologically unusual, so they’d use neurodivergent or neuro-atypical instead. Other people were less tense about grammar so they’d use neurodiverse. I don’t see *that* particular quarrel mentioned above, but believe me it was a big one.

Neuroatypical, neurodiverse, and neurodivergent all mean the exact same thing – neurologically unusual. They do not mean autistic only. They never meant autistic only. Neurodiversity once referred to a mostly-autistic-founded movement, but neurodiverse as a word used to describe people didn’t just mean autistic.

And all this BS about whether it’s only developmental disabilities that count is hair-splitting BS, that’s all it is, BS. I have no time or patience for this. FFS if your brain is unusual, hell if your neurological wiring outside your brain is unusual, then you count, end of story. Anyone who tells you different, that’s their problem. I was there. And we meant you. At least, enough of us meant you that you count. And those who didn’t mean you, don’t matter. Good fucking grief what is it with people these days, making things more complicated than they have to be.

~~grumbles off in a stompy shuffle to be a Grumpy Stick~~

Notes: