I hate the term "neurotypical "

I've always had a lesion in my brain and I've had epilepsy for as long as I can remember, so I was pretty neuro atypical long before I got this autism diagnosis as an adult just one or two years ago. I don't think you can say that someone you never met and know nothing about is "neurotypical" It's just a complete assumption and it's rude. 

Parents
  • I don't think you can say that someone you never met and know nothing about is "neurotypical" It's just a complete assumption and it's rude. 

    That's true - if you've never met them and known nothing about them.  I wouldn't look at anyone new and try to think of them either in terms of 'neurotypical' or 'neurodiverse'... just as 'someone else.'

    The terms are used to differentiate people on the basis of neurological make-up, and 'neurotypical' means basically 'not displaying or characterized by autistic or other neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behaviour.'

    It does get used as a label by autistic people, and sometimes in a derogatory sense.  I've used it as such myself, I admit.  I think a lot of it stems from those of us who've endured negativity at the hands of neurotypical people: stereotyping, bullying, discrimination, being accused of using our condition 'as an excuse', etc.  We are in a very small minority, and as such we often have a battle to get our voices heard and understood.  Which isn't to say that all neurotypicals treat us the same.  Not at all.

    But I agree that it's wrong to make assumptions about people based on no knowledge.  That goes for everything about them: age, race, colour, belief, sexuality, gender, ability, education, class, etc.

  • That goes for everything about them: age, race, colour, belief, sexuality, gender, ability, education, class, etc.

    That is true, but would you ever say that someone was an old hag / slag / ***? Let alone call someone a n****r!? Would you call a person a Bible basher or a cripple or just plain thick?

    So what's different about the word "neurotypical" (other than that it sounds like some kind of real medical thing.)

    Although I would not fit in that category myself, I think the term is very offensive.

Reply
  • That goes for everything about them: age, race, colour, belief, sexuality, gender, ability, education, class, etc.

    That is true, but would you ever say that someone was an old hag / slag / ***? Let alone call someone a n****r!? Would you call a person a Bible basher or a cripple or just plain thick?

    So what's different about the word "neurotypical" (other than that it sounds like some kind of real medical thing.)

    Although I would not fit in that category myself, I think the term is very offensive.

Children
  • Although I would not fit in that category myself, I think the term is very offensive.

    It does come down to context, but I have seen it used in the way you are taking issue with.

  • I might use a few names against certain people - though none of the stronger ones you mention.  I really think it's stretching things to think of 'neurotypical' as in any way belonging to a group of insults like 'n******'.

    'Neurotypical' is a pretty common term, used in the scientific community and elsewhere, to define someone whose neurological make-up isn't 'neurodiverse'. 

    That doesn't mean it defines the whole person.  'N*****' carries a whole huge baggage of derogatory assumptions, and is grossly offensive. 

    How about if someone is defined as 'haemophiliac' or 'diabetic'?  It differentiates them from people who do not have those conditions.  But it doesn't define them.  And they're not insulting or offensive tags.

    We can all find certain terms and names offensive.  Some people might give you the cold shoulder if you told them you were an atheist, or a pagan.  Personally, though, I don't find either 'neurotypical' or 'neurodiverse' to be offensive terms.

    Some people might actually be glad to call themselves neurotypical, as it means they aren't 'autistic'.