Petition to make neurodiversity a separate protected characteristic in the UK

I promised to do this a while ago, and now I'm finally getting around to it. The petition will be on petition.parliament.uk. The character counts are extremely limited, so it was difficult to provide the needed information in the available space. Please let me know what you think of the text below, because this is for all of us and not just me. Note that the information I have provided (see the links) is also from a government website, so they can't really refute that.

The title of the petition is:

Make neurodiversity a separate protected characteristic.

The background I have written is:

Neurodivergent individuals, e.g. those with autism or Tourette's, often suffer discrimination due to their condition, whether or not their condition amounts to a disabilty. Making neurodiversity a protected characteristic in itself, separate from disability, would be a step in the right direction.

Here are the additional details I have written:

Neurodivergent individuals are denied both fair treatment and mental health services at a higher rate than in the general population. As a result, the unemployment and suicide rates in the neurodivergent group are disproportionately higher as well. Presently, they are obliged to prove that their condition amounts to a disability in order to be legally protected from the discrimination and mistreatment to which they so often fall victim. Further info: tinyurl.com/y829k3oh & tinyurl.com/yavfxmod.

PS I need 5 emails addresses for supporters of the petition, so if anyone is a UK citizen and willing to "officially" support the petition, please PM me. I can likely get some from people I know, but maybe not all five that I need (I don't know many people).

Thanks.

(Edited based on comments received)

  • I very specifically meant that things could be seen as discriminatory against neurotypicals. Most seem to have picked up on what I was discussing, which is that everyone is on both the NT and autism spectrum. Hence if something protects people up to a border near what the majority of population class as neurotypical then people on the other side of the border could see the protection as discriminatory.

    The present set up has a buffer between neurotypicals and those deemed to be on the Autism spectrum thus the larger NT population does not feel discriminated against in anyway. The losers are the cohort that are on the tail of the NT spectrum and the tail of the Autism spectrum. As there has to be a cutoff for all spectrum conditions then there will always s be some that feel that they ought to be classified as having a condition and are not. Equally though, it could be argued that they should be classified as being neurotypical, which is how the law actually works at the moment.

    The basic problem is that there will always be people that think they should be on the other side of the assessment line. 

    As for discrimination, that will always exist as people inherently do not tend to like people that are different from themselves. That works both ways, as often autistics, including myself, do not like neurotypicals.

  • Technically, I believe that any type of sexual orientation is protected, so straight people are just as protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation as those who do not identify as straight. In the same way, in the event that neurotypical people were discriminated against for being neurotypical, they would also technically be protected. Thus, nobody is given an advantage or a disadvantage with this proposed change.

    Yes I meant neurodivergent.

  • neurodiverse person

    I expect you meant 'neurodivergent' there, as in the rest of the paragraph.

    'Neurodiversity' is something like 'ethnicity' or 'sexual orientation'. All humans are neurodiverse, and have an ethnicity and a sexual orientation (including asexuality and so on). If there were discrimination against heterosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal under the Equality Act too. But you can still point to specific abuse directed at people who are in minorities according to one or other characteristic: disabled, gay, autistic. So the Equality Act doesn't embody discrimination against straight people, and with this amendment would not discriminate against typically developing people.

    Another question for the FAQ maybe.

  • It is not clear what you mean by "discriminatory against NTs". A neurodivergent person, by definition, is one with a specific condition, the list of which is available in the first link I provided. Neurotypical people are never discriminated against for being neurotypical, so it's not clear to me when the Equality Act would apply to them. Neurodivergent people, on the other hand, are frequently treated less favourably than NTs, and that defines the minority group the topic of this petition is meant to protect. This is not to achieve any kind of favourable treatment for neurodivergent people. It is only to protect us from discriminatory acts and harassment to which we are often subjected.

  • The purpose of this is to recognise that all neurodiverse people, not just the ones who are disabled (or are easily recognised as such by others), have a greater chance of being subject to discrimination and other types of negative treatment, just because they are different. I agree with the social model of disability, and, in my mind, it needs to replace the current definition of disability in the Equality Act. However, is a person disabled because they are treated badly by others? If that were the case, then other minority groups who are often mistreated could possibly be considered "disabled" as well.

    All the disability-related forms of mistreatment aside (which would still be illegal - I'm not trying to change that), it is often the case that neurodiverse or neurodivergent  people are treated differently, not because they are disabled, but simply because they don't fit the neurotypicals' category of "one of us", at work, at school, and in other situations. This type of discrimination, much like discrimination based on race or gender, for example, has nothing to do with how much time a person takes off from work because of disability-related illness or the need for reasonable adjustments. It is because, even though they are often just as capable of doing their job, they are seen as different, and, unlike with the perception of disability, this difference is nearly as apparent to others as skin colour or gender, and, in my experience, it seems to invoke extremely negative reactions in others, beyond any kind of reason or logic.

    It is the case that neurodiverse people - whether they consider themselves disabled or not - are mistreated more often than any other group (probably because they are perceived as not being able to defend themselves, which is often true). Here, I am referring to types of discriminatory behaviours that fall outside of those that are specific to disabilty. I think there needs to be another category, separate from disability, to protect people who are discriminated against, not because they are disabled, but because they are different. I want to make sure people can't shrug this off by saying that neurodiverse people are protected under the umbrella of disability anyway because it is not always the case that everyone is protected, and some neurodiverse people simply don't self-identify as disabled, so they shouldn't be forced to do so in order to be protected by the law.

    We belong to a minority group whose members are often treated badly by others just for being a member of that group. Why should we have fewer rights than members of any other minority group? By fewer rights, I mean that we are not automatically protected as someone belonging to any other minority group would be. We first have to prove that we are disabled, and if someone doesn't manage to do so, that is, that person falls into the category of being obviously not like everyone else (and thus open to mistreatment), but not impaired enough to be considered "disabled", there is no legal protection available. No other minority group has that additional burden placed on them.

    I want to change that.

  • Yes, very much agreed. Very well said about fitting criterias and that all people are neurodiverse. 

  • The problem is, that you have to have a method by which someone fits a characteristic, as such there will always be people either side of the border. In addition, this could be seen as discriminatory against NTs. Overall therefore I can not see the intrinsic value in it or what it is trying to achieve, as technically all people are neurodiverse, in the same way everybody is on the NT spectrum and everyone is on the Autism spectrum, just to greater or lesser extents.

  • I do agree with this, although I can see problems with getting it accepted.  This is simply because autism is just put in the 'disability' section of the Equality Act, despite many of us not feeling disabled in the conventional sense.

    There are debates about 'disability' being too much engrained in peoples minds as the medical model of disability, whereas many autistic people come within the 'social' model, which would cover many more autistic people.

    There are certain disabilities which are automatically classed as such without further proof - cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV, which are recognised from day one of diagnosis.  Perhaps what we need really is for autism to be so recognised (under the social model of disability) which should prevent the problems.  Because I cannot see there being a separate heading for neurodiversity discrimination, however much we think it a good idea, and one which I would support.

    However, giving Autism 'automatic disabillty status' would prevent all the problems and arguments we have about getting adjustments made for us at work and in the wider world.  And giving greater understanding as to what the social model of disabiliity is.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability

  • I suppose I still have a couple of reservations, but don't let them put you off. I would rather think of them as the part of a FAQ section:

    • In an ideal world equality legislation wouldn't be necessary, as every person mistreated or discriminated against would have allies. Obviously we're not in an ideal world. Equality legislation does change behaviour (evidence).
    • How can we have a legal definition of neurodiversity? What does it include? Does it require a known undisputed neurological or biological basis (because few conditions have that)?
    • What practical effect will it have on employers?

    I think the enthusiasm's potentially there, so hope you can get an active group together.

  • Thanks for your reply. Right now, I am working on gathering the needed info and research. I think I'd like to build a site with information but where people can also post their own stories. Any suggestions for links or other info that can be included would be very useful.

  • So I love this idea but petitions are not something I have written before so I'm not sure I can offer many suggestions.

    Someone did however suggest creating a website to link to the petition which I think is a fantastic idea for two reasons: firstly that there seems to be too much info that we want to include to fit into the space provided for the petition (plus info in petition is for gov but need info outside the petition itself to tell people why they should sign). Secondly I think a website including perhaps various research, statistics and stories will make the petition itself look more...professional? Not sure if that's the right word but people will take it more seriously.

    I'm currently doing a web development course online (building websites from scratch). I've done a fair few simple websites so far so if you want me to pull together a site for it I'd be more than happy to. I will need help with content though - tend to struggle with that.

  • I'd find it quite important to add into the info you're putting online with the petition that bit about what a protected characteristic is and other examples of current ones.

  • Minor thing but I think "on the autism spectrum" is the most widely used term at the moment as well as the one with least objections within the community. I myself don't have any great opinion on it just thought I'd add that since I'd read it recently.

  • In case anyone tried to message me about this, I now have messaging enabled. It seemed to be off by default. Anyway, feel free to message me if you have comments you don't want to post publicly.

  • I'd have to say that I'm feeling a bit discouraged now. I was expecting people on this site to be more enthusiastic about this. I know that not everyone has suffered bullying, mistreatment, or discrimination because of their condition, but it seems to me that there is at least one post per day from someone who has, or knows someone who has. If people here are not interested in this, how could the petition itself possibly be successful?

    I'm sure the wording can be made to everyone's satisfaction, or at least we can come to some kind of consensus. I am thinking of putting up a webpage explaining the reasons for this and giving other people the opportunity to tell their own story of how they have suffered because the law only protects us if we can prove disability, which can be difficult in itself because of the very nature of the definition of disability given in the Equality Act.

    People who are discriminated against because of their ethnic backgrounds, genders, etc, never have to go through a humiliating process of having to prove they are less able than others in order to be given protection under the law, but even though we are more often bullied, mistreated, and denied services and support than any other group (whether or not we individually consider our condition to be a disability), we have less legal protection than any other group. We are different, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are less able. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being a disabled person, but the way the law is written, one has to prove that one has a disability before one can be protected. This petition, if successful, would make sure that neurodivergent people are protected without having to go through that.

    Of course, those with a particular condition who consider themselves disabled would still find themselves under the umbrella of the protected characteristic of disability, and would have the right to ask for reasonable adjustments, etc. The purpose of this petition is not to remove that protection, but rather to make sure that all neurodivergent people, not just those who consider themselves disabled, are protected from the mistreatment that we, more often than any other group, receive from others, not because we are disabled, but because we are different. I'm sure you'll agree that's not an unreasonable wish.

    My intention would be that neurodiversity would be a protected characteristic on par with those other than disability, because disability has some extra protections (e.g. being able to ask for reasonable adjustments). As above, anyone who is a disabled person would be covered by the extra protection given to disabled people. The purpose of adding another protected characteristic is specifically to try to combat the stigma often associated with simply being considered different, because of autism, learning disabilities, Tourette's, ADHD, epilepsy, acquired and degenerative conditions, mental health conditions, etc.

    This is not in any way a new idea; this was proposed in 2016 and probably before that as well. I think it just needs a show of support from the voting public in order to be seriously considered by the government. That is the reason for the petition.

    Please at least vote in the poll, so I know that more than 8 people care about this. Thank you to the 8 people who already did vote.

  • I think one or more personal stories would be good, but they don't need to be included in the petition unless it's really had mainstream news coverage. There could be a supporting web page for the campaign.

    the condition of being autistic does not by default make someone suicidal; it is the mistreatment from others routinely experienced by autistic people on a day-to-day basis that can cause depression and can sometimes ultimately lead to suicide. That makes it even more important that autistic people be provided appropriate care

    In most cases, yes.

    I hope more people comment or vote. Maybe they haven't seen this yet.

  • It's still very much in the draft stage, so don't worry if something still seems to be missing. What is difficult is to fit everything into the very limited available space. Perhaps it should be more of a personal appeal, like the petition for better autism training for health professionals.Right now, I worry that it's too dry and impersonal. I'm really surprised that more people haven't voted in the poll, considering the enthusiasm the idea got when I brought it up a while ago.Maybe everyone is just enjoying the summer weather and not frequenting these forums.

    I can add the word "bullying" back in, but I thought it would be covered by "denied fair treatment". The issue is the space allowed more than anything else.

    As for the conditions included under "neurodiversity", there is simply not enough room to include the comprehensive list. There are lists in the referenced documents, but unfortunately they do not match exactly. (Again, the limited space prevents me from providing the full titles of those documents.) I do believe that autistic people represent the majority of neurodivergent individuals, which is why I mentioned that particular condition specifically. Personally, I would take an inclusive approach to what exactly consititutes "neurodiversity", because any type of neurological condition, learning disability, developmental disorder, and even illnesses or brain injuries acquired later in life, potentially leaves one open for stigma and unfair treatment from others, and that is exactly what this petition is supposed to address.

    As for "identity-first" language, again, the language I used was based on the amount of space. I think the language used is a matter of personal preference (as is made clear by the link you provided), and also that language itself is not as important as the attitude behind the words that are used. I tend to identify myself as "on the spectrum", but I do acknowledge that "autistic" is probably more of a part of one's identity than many other possible adjectives, because it describes how someone's brain is wired, which makes it completely inseperable from the person.

    I didn't really know at first whether it was wise to mention mental health services because it would imply that all autistic people need that, but so many people on this site have been told that mental health professionals in their area do not cover autism, so have been denied treatment that would be given to non-autistic individuals (which is, after all, the very definition of discrimination). Obviously, being denied care in this area potentially leads to a higher incidence of depression and suicide, over and above that caused by the treatment received from others because of the condition itself. I believe that the condition of being autistic does not by default make someone suicidal; it is the mistreatment from others routinely experienced by autistic people on a day-to-day basis that can cause depression and can sometimes ultimately lead to suicide. That makes it even more important that autistic people be provided appropriate care, and even more of a tragedy that they are often denied that care. There aren't even enough practiitioners capable of diagnosing autism, which is why people have to wait for years for even an identification or acknowledgment of their condition, and then some who are obviously autistic are told that they aren't, just because the person they approach for diagnosis doesn't have sufficient knowledge. And let's not even mention the difficulty some people have being referred for a diagnosis in the first place.

    I used the phrase "step in the right direction" because I don't want to claim that making neurodiversity a protected characteristic will automatically and immediately stop all unfair treatment. It won't, but at least people will be able to claim some kind of protection under the law, whereas now, there is no such protection without proving disability, which in some instances is difficult to do, given the medical model of disability in the Equality Act, which is in contrast to the more fair and realistic social model of disability. which reflects the difficulties that we have to face every day.

    I really do want this petition to succeed, so I am considering whether to relate a personal story instead of providing dry facts. The dry facts can be provided in links if people want further information. I could draft a much more comprehensive document full of references, and provide a link to that in the petition information. Then space would not be an issue and a personal story could be the primary focus of the petition. People tend to react more emotionally to a personal story than to a collection of dry facts. The only question is whose story should it be.

    Please keep the feedback coming.

  • I'm feeling a bit bad now that DragonCat16 may have over-reacted to my early thoughts. I mentioned that 'bullying' appeared three times because the text could have given the impression that that was the only thing that being a protected characteristic should change, so suggested mentioning discrimination in services and in employment, which happens; I haven't looked for formal evidence. Now the word has gone altogether, which is a shame because I know lots of people relate to it.

    And it was me that brought up mental health - Autistica found it was a top concern. I think suicide may have rightly been in the first draft. The suicide risk is usually quoted as 9 times that in the general population. I have had conversations about whether mental distress is included in neurodiversity, and still maintain that psychosis and depression should be seen as temporary, functional conditions, not a neurodivergence or neurominority. I haven't asked enough people with experience of psychosis whether they would identify that way. Tourette Syndrome on the other hand, which I suggested despite knowing little about, is another lifelong spectrum of differences, and similarly has stereotypes that are different from the reality.

    I suppose I should have said 'appropriate mental health services'. Many autistic people find themselves in the mental health system all the time, but in my case among many others, getting misunderstood and receiving inappropriate, ineffective and damaging treatment. I'd see that as an example of mistreatment by services and discrimination. An analogy I'm thinking of is if in Wales, the only counsellor or psychiatrist you could see only spoke English, which could be bad for a significant minority. Most clinicians seem to unthinkingly define positive mental health as being NT.

    The understanding of what is included in 'neurodiversity' may affect whether the petition succeeds. After some confusion about cross-party moves to make 'gender identity a protected characteristic.. in place of gender reassignment', MPs may think self-identification or self-certification would be a problematic issue. (I don't know much about the issues around gender identity so don't want to get into it. The commitment was in Labour, LibDem and Green manifestos, but seemed to provoke a significant transphobic reaction based on misunderstandings such as that sex would no longer be a protected characteristic. All I'm saying is that diagnosis or self-identification as autistic might be seen as a potential legislative conundrum, despite the fact it makes sense for trans people.)

    'step in the right direction' now seems weak, and makes the proposal sound incomplete. I was more thinking of something like 'We ask that Parliament [or Government] make neurodiversity a protected characteristic in itself, separate from...'. I also have come to favour 'identity-first' language for autistic people: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361315588200

    Really just my opinion, and not worth more than a penny.

  • Neurodivergent individuals are denied both fair treatment and mental health services at a higher rate than in the general population.

    I find this sentence a bit confusing. Could you perhaps provide some sort of citation? Has it been proven to be true with research or surveys? Your definition of neurodiversity seem unclear as well (you only give two examples). If you consider "depression", "anxiety", "schizophrenia", "OCD", "ADHD", etc. all to be types of neurodiversity, then I don't think it's true that neurodivergent individuals are denied mental health services at a higher rate than in the general population. There probably is a much higher ratio of neurodivergent individuals currently in mental health services than the general population in mental health services (i.e., the majority of people currently in mental health are neurodivergent)

  • Thanks for your feedback. Sure, I'll make the edits to the original post, and once I do, please let me know if it's to your satisfaction. I was feeling really confined by the character limits, so I had to delete a lot of sentences and words in order for it to fit.

1 2 3