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 also hate the term. It is used in the Autistic Community to describe the other 99% of the world, and it is language that is drilled into people from diagnosis, or childhood by people from all angles of the community. I don't like it at all. I've been in Autistic Workshops and called out the people thrusting it down peoples throats.

    My main problem with it is that it creates a "them and us" dynamic. Which instantly puts up a barrier. Not good for either side. If you are taught to see 99% of the world as outsiders, how is your mindset supposed to develop towards them. If we expect people to understand us, and just label them as "neurotypicals", everytime something doesn't go right, we fall into the trap of seeing the whole world as part of the problem. People do it here, I see it regularly. I use the term occasionally, but never in a derogatory way (find a post, if anyone can dispute it), and when I do I put it in quotation marks because I don't like the default definition that the "autistic lexicon" expresses.

    It is used in a derogatory term here, regularly. To be frank, if I was reading some of the posts, I'd find it pretty offensive if I was "neurotypical". It makes us look bad, in my opinion. If we expect them to understand us, we need some sort of healthy dialogue, that is beneficial to us all. Obviously there are people that don't want the dialogue on either side, that's their choice, but they reap what they sow.

    If someone is a ***, they are just that, and it's not because they are "neurotypical". It's lazy, and to be frank, childish, in my opinion. I've had the *** kicked out of me, been stabbed, gassed, expelled, sacked, been called "loony", a "mong", and blah, blah, blah. I just blamed the individuals, and addressed them, not the whole of "neurotypical" society. Guess what too, sometimes it was my fault. I was a nightmare for part of my life. When things didn't work out my way, I didn't blame "neurotypicals", I had to have a hard look at myself sometimes.

    I don't really blame anyone here, and who am I to anyway. They have this language drilled into them, and it's frankly cult-like, in some scenarios. But....some people welcome it with open arms in my opinion, they want to be "the other", an outsider, a misanthrope, a nihilist, and narcissistic. I've met a couple. They are free to, but misery loves company, people with bright outlooks, and no hangups end up getting sucked in.

    I don't have a problem with the use of the term, it's how the way it's part of the culture, even by non-autistics working in autism, as a derogatory term, and a boogeyman. I don't think it's healthy for a young person to be given this outlook by adults who are teaching them to navigate an already tough world. As for adults who get a late diagnosis, it throws up a lot of questions regarding past traumas. I think that it can have an affect where it can make people see everything as an enemy, that is to non-autistic, or not part of the Autistic Community.

    I'm not telling people not to use it, and I'm not attacking anyone. We've all had a hard path, some harder than others. The thing I'm trying to say is we should try and think about the whole dynamic, not just the word. Dialogue works both ways, and we can't just slap the "NT" label on everything, just as we don't want a label slapped on us. I think people which uses of "neurotypical" I'm talking about. I get it, some "NT's" are no angels, far from it, but the same applies to us.

    Right, I'm ready to be called a heretic, but just ponder some of my points.

  • If you are taught to see 99% of the world as outsiders, how is your mindset supposed to develop towards them.

    I thought it was the other way around - that the 99% saw people with neurodiversity as outsiders.  Maybe we make outsiders of ourselves in many ways.  I think, as I said, that the problem is that many, many people - myself included - have had whole lifetimes of not understanding why we had problems doing what other people seemed to be able to do with ease.  This seriously started to do my head in once I hit my thirties.  Wherever I'd been and whatever I'd done up until then, I'd felt like I was being rejected or marginalised by others - starting very much with the bullying throughout my school years.  I tried all sorts of ways of developing relationships with others.  It never seemed to work.  In my early 30s, my depressions started.  I began almost to feel that there was a conspiracy going on.  Other people had friends.  Other people had relationships.  Not me.  What was the secret that they weren't letting me in on?  For quite a long while, I did see things very much as 'me... and everyone else.'  Other people, throughout my life, had seemed either indifferent towards me at best, and hostile towards me at worst.  There wasn't really anyone, apart from my mother, whom I felt could go to, trust, get emotional support from.

    When I got my diagnosis, and found out I was neurodiverse, and that I was in a very small minority, and that the majority were neurotypical... then it began to make sense to me.  It was a helpful way of enabling me to understand why I was 'different': I was neurodiverse, they were neurotypical.  Now, I know I've said my things about 'neurotypicals' and their behaviour as much as many other people have.  But the truth is that I do try - as you say - to think about the whole dynamic: to see humans, not sub-categories.  Every one of us is different - old, young, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, male, female, non-binary, neurodiverse, neurotypical.  Maybe I don't always make a good job of that.  Maybe it's just too easy to find something to blame - and then to find a label to stick on it.  It is wrong, though.  It's as wrong as people making assumptions about others based on race, beliefs, appearance and so on.  Prejudice.  And what's the source of that?  Ignorance.  And where does it lead?  Fights, wars, bloodshed.

    I see the point you and others are making - and yes, I can see why people would dislike the term 'neurotypical'.  I'm sorry for getting hot under the collar about it.  I try not to see it as a term of abuse, but as a way of understanding the distinction between autistic and non-autistic neurology.  Yes, though - I admit that I have used it myself to lump other people together as a way of explaining the difficulties I've had.  And that's wrong.

    I'm not a misanthrope.  I try to be all-embracing.  I try not to make judgments.  One of the reasons I disengaged from political groups - in real life and on social media - is because of the tendency always to set up 'them and us' positions.  I don't want to have any part of that.  But sometimes I let the guard slip, I admit.  And I don't like that part of me especially.  I'm work in progress.

  • My comment wasn't about you Tom, I was explaining my position about the whole "neurotypical" issue that the OP had raised. It was about the issue as a whole.

    I thought it was the other way around - that the 99% saw people with neurodiversity as outsiders. 

    I don't believe so. I have heard the same mindset, in both real life, and online, where people are more than glad to see "neurotypicals" as the outside. It depends how you personally decide to view it. I've actually sat in workshops with other autistics who have got pissed off at the whole dynamic being pushed down their throats. I've actually seen a non-autistic worker get frustrated at a guy who told her he didn't want to think like that, she couldn't accept his view that "My wife, kids, family, and friends are "NT", and they aren't a problem". She kept telling him "but they can never truly understand you". There were young adults there, who were basically happy with "NT's", but we were all "wrongthinkers".

    It's their choice to see us as outsiders, as it is also ours to see them as such.

    Maybe we make outsiders of ourselves in many ways.

    If they make us outsiders that's wrong, but if we choose to be outsiders, that's our choice. There's being forced out, and shunned, but there's also choosing to be an outsider. I think you are making it sound like "we bring it on ourselves", I personally disagree.

    I think, as I said, that the problem is that many, many people - myself included - have had whole lifetimes of not understanding why we had problems doing what other people seemed to be able to do with ease.

    Myself included. It's drove me to dark places. It's driven a lot of us there.

    This seriously started to do my head in once I hit my thirties.

    I was first in a shrinks office at 13. First sectioned in my twenties, we've all had problems with different things. My experiences don't trump anyone elses though, bad is bad. For me it's my senses more than anything that gets me down. 

    When I got my diagnosis, and found out I was neurodiverse, and that I was in a very small minority, and that the majority were neurotypical... then it began to make sense to me.  It was a helpful way of enabling me to understand why I was 'different': I was neurodiverse, they were neurotypical.

    That's sort of setting yourself up for the dynamic of "them and us". Especially with the narrative in the Autistic Community. I thought kind of like it at first, I had an answer, my diagnosis, but some of the stuff that I started to buy into was bullshit, in my opinion. All of my woes weren't down to a "neurotypical boogeyman", they were down to a condition, that now I understand it, I have some form of control over. I'm autistic, it doesn't make me that special, I don't care if I am either. I'm the same person I've always been. At a push, and correct me if I'm wrong, maybe you like being "different", there's nothing wrong with that if it helps you.

    I see the point you and others are making - and yes, I can see why people would dislike the term 'neurotypical'.  I'm sorry for getting hot under the collar about it.

    No-one's getting at one another here, this is a discussion that I feel needs to be had. I think the fact you are discussing it helps. I didn't see you getting hot under the collar.

    Yes, though - I admit that I have used it myself to lump other people together as a way of explaining the difficulties I've had.  And that's wrong.

    I've punched people square in the face when I've faced difficulties, probably much worse than name calling, but that was when I wasn't diagnosed, plus, quite a long time ago. I've found that since my diagnosis it's been easier to face the difficulties, I can rationalise it, and when needed help others rationalise it.

    I'm not a misanthrope.

    No-one said you were.

    I'm work in progress.

    We all are. A life without challenge, either from ourselves or others, isn't a life worth living. I don't call people "neurotypicals" in the context we are speaking about, but I do use the word *** a lot. It's a good job it gets censored here.

    I think in my opinion, with those of us that can communicate well, the need for us to be ready to engage in a dialogue with non-autistics, and not think "neurotypical ***" will help people who are autistic. A lot of our troubles boil down to awareness, not evil "neurotypicals" conspiring against us. The more we can explain things, and make changes, the better the situation will be for us and the following generations of autistics will be. Things are a struggle, but with an open dialogue, they can improve, in my opinion.

    This isn't about you, me, or anyone that posts here, it's about the whole Autistic Community. I'm just giving my input on the OP's post, and addressing your reply to me though too, as and where relevant. I just think that if there's changes to be made, it's best we add to the dialogue, and all the better if "neurotypicals" are part of it.

  • Look... I'm sorry.

    I'd believe you but reading through this thread, but seeing your point of view here......

    https://community.autism.org.uk/f/adults-on-the-autistic-spectrum/14824/letter-to-myself

    which contradicts pretty much everything you've said, directs people here to dogpile, and it seems that someone has gladly took up your call. I'd be lying if I said I did. I'd also be lying if I said accepted your apology.

    Seems I was right when I said.......

    Passive-aggressive drama maybe?

    As for your first post to my last reply, I don't feel a need to address those points they were detracting from the OP's issue, and you are only backtracking to reframe the conversation again, when I feel that you fully meant what you said.

    I'm wasn't trying at all to conflate your opinions with these other issues - although I can see that's how you've interpreted it.

    You were, and I interpreted it as it was written. Besides you admit this in the thread I linked above.

    I was using analogies (crassly, I accept) to try to come to some comprehension of what you meant.

    I stand by what I said in my last post about this. You were conflating the issues delibrately, and you don't even mention misquoting me, or that you tried to position my point of view as something that disregards other users. Again you admit this in the thread above.

    I'm sorry if I've affronted you in this way.  It was not intentional, I can assure you.

    I don't really care about being offended. I care about the things you have failed to address, or put the onus on me for misunderstanding you. I didn't. Again you admit this in the thread above.

    I would take the comment down, but I think that would be wrong and cowardly.

    It would, I'll agree there.

    I'm struggling to come to an understanding of several issues at the moment, and unfortunately I don't seem to be doing it in a way that is very constructive or enlightening - to myself or anyone else. 

    Again as I've said, this thread isn't about you, or me for that matter. However, since the thread has started you have more or less made it specifically about you, and oddly only really got into the thick of it with me, which has then in turn drawn me into it. I don't feel that I'm to blame, as you have addressed me directly, and been underhanded at times.

    You seem to have taken every point which you feel was directed at you as personal, which was far from the truth. Sat and stewed over it for a few days, and then more or less resorted to a pretty underhanded set of responses.

    Just because I think differently about the issue to you, doesn't mean I'm an enemy, it doesn't mean it's about you, and it doesn't mean you are a victim. I'm allowed to think differently. It doesn't make me your "oppressor", if I have different ideas.

  • I'd hate to see what would happen if you were in the majority!

    Well, thankfully that's never likely to happen.

  • Hi Cloudy Mountains,

    Look... I'm sorry.  I'm wasn't trying at all to conflate your opinions with these other issues - although I can see that's how you've interpreted it.  I was using analogies (crassly, I accept) to try to come to some comprehension of what you meant.   It was never my intention to offend or to make some form of personal attack.  I'm sorry if I've affronted you in this way.  It was not intentional, I can assure you.  I would take the comment down, but I think that would be wrong and cowardly.  I've said what I've said.  So I deserve to be judged on it.

    I'm struggling to come to an understanding of several issues at the moment, and unfortunately I don't seem to be doing it in a way that is very constructive or enlightening - to myself or anyone else. 

    I'm sorry again for offending you.  I've always had great respect for your views, advice and opinions.

  • You were talking about the autistic community using neurodiverse as a negative or derogatory term......

    Yes.  I can see where I've hopelessly confused the issue!  NDs often use the term NT in a derogatory sense.  I meant that NTs might also come to use ND in a derogatory sense - the same as they can use 'autistic'.  And I was speaking generally about usage rather than specifically.  I've heard the word 'autistic' used in a derogatory sense a few times (not on here).  So... just as someone could come to hate the term 'neurotypical' because of the way it often gets used, equally someone could come to feel the same way about 'autistic'.... and then, possibly, 'neurodiverse', too.

    I don't know why you are asking me. I don't use either. I'd say it's a bit unfair to imply I would, or conflate it with the issue we were discussing in relation to the OP's post.

    Sorry.... I wasn't asking you a question.  It was a general thing again.  Whenever I hear it said, I always wonder what it's supposed to mean.  'Gosh, that's such gay way of doing things', etc. People tack on connotations that can lead to a derogation of the original meaning of the word.

    You're right that it depends on context.  What I was trying to say about 'mental' is how it tends to get bandied about in a lazy, slangy way which a lot of people with serious mental health problems find offensive.  Like 'gay'.  It either becomes a shorthand for something, or a distortion.

    'Meltdown' isn't a term I like.  If I've said elsewhere that I preferred it, then I can only think it was in comparison to some other term.  Again, it's how it gets commonly used now in a way that changes or distorts its meaning.  It's used in the autistic community to describe a particular kind of incident: an 'overload', as you say.  But it's common usage in all sorts of other ways has somehow demeaned the term.  I remember a few years back, the mother of an autistic child taking Sainsbury's (I think) to task for selling a kids' t-shirt with the slogan 'I'm having a meltdown', or something like.  I thought it was a bit of an extreme reaction, but then I could see her point.  It was as if it was saying that 'meltdown' is synonymous with 'tantrum' - which is quite a different thing.  'Getting out of my pram' used in the context I used it didn't mean I was having a meltdown, just that I was getting a bit hot under the collar about something - which I often do.  The point I was trying to make is that 'meltdown' now seems to have taken on this connotation.  It's used so often that it's probably lost the meaning it's supposed to have in an autistic context.

  • I've thought about this a bit more.

    Ok.

    And whilst I can accept what you're saying in one respect, I also cannot help but look at it in another way.

    There's no problem with that. I wasn't just posting for you to have an opinion anyway. I stated that several times. I don't know why you seem to think otherwise. This isn't just about me and you anyway.

    You may well think these are crass examples - taking things to extremes and over-stating the case.

    I do. I think by stating that before making the examples you might too.

    But let's consider:

    Yes, let's.

    A black man in the Jim Crow South.  Would he say 'All of my woes aren't down to a 'white boogeyman', they're down to the colour of my skin, and now that I understand it, I have some form of control.'?

    That's a faulty analogy, and a strawman. We aren't black people living under Jim Crow Laws in the South of the United States. We aren't being segregated, lynched, or hanged. We can catch the same trains, sit wherever we want on buses, in buildings, use the same toilets, and pretty much have laws that protect our civil rights, not hinder them. We are free to marry or date who we want, and if we choose to have children, they don't have to fear the same. Conflating this with the original issue is misleading.

    Or a gay person who has suffered homophobic persecution all of his life.  Would he say 'All of my woes weren't down to a 'gay-bashing boogeyman', they were down to my sexuality'?

    That's another faulty analogy, and a strawman. We aren't going to go to prison, be executed, be told we are going to go to hell, have to surpress our identity, hide who we are to our families, and friends. Again conflating this with the original issue is misleading.

    In other words, as I see it... 'It wasn't their fault.  It was mine.'

    I think that the examples you used were quite misleading, maybe deliberately. It implies that because, I personally, have reservations about the use of the word "neurotypical" in the context I was talking about, I have no problem with the civil rights abuses of African-Americans, the LGBTQ community, and people on the Autistic Spectrum. Nothing is further from the truth. Trying to reframe the discussion around those issues is cheap, and offensive.

    All of our woes aren't down to a "neurotypical boogeyman", in my opinion. There are lots of factors that can affect us. I never said "all of our woes" at any stage, you are putting words into my mouth. You also said "sometimes we bring it on ourselves", not me. I disagreed with you, and made a point of stating so.

    All I'm trying to do here is to set the issue into a context that many on these forums - those who've perhaps, in your words, 'bought into the bullshit' - will probably understand.

    I wouldn't say that. I'd say you are trying to conflate lots of things that aren't part of the original issue, to distract from the points I was making in my posts. I'd also say that by saying "many on these forums will understand", you are trying to make it seem like I'm not aware of the problems people face, or empathise with them. I do.

    And let's get another thing out of the way...

    My statement was...

    some of the stuff that I started to buy into was bullshit, in my opinion.

    not "bought into the bullshit". I think that you misquoting me is cheap.

    The 'condition', and the issues it creates for many people, leads to the negative reaction to it... a negative reaction coming from a majority who do not understand the condition, and in many cases do not want to understand it.

    I have it too Tom, it creates issues for me too, but I guess that doesn't register because I have a difference of opinion. As I've stated life hasn't been a picnic for me either.

    SOME people have a negative reaction to it, some people might not take to the individual in general. SOME people don't want to understand it. Saying so is unfair. Autistics aren't all the same, neither are "neurotypicals". I'm just going over ground I've covered earlier here.

    You have contradicted yourself in reply after reply.

    They simply want to see it as 'wrong', and therefore in need either of sanction or correction.

    Who is "they". "Neurotypicals" I guess. I'd disagree, not all of them do. I'm against any mistreatment of autistic people. This should go without saying. However I will state it because of the implications your statement has.

    And if the person with the condition refuses to be sanctioned or corrected (quite rightly, perhaps, in 'human rights' and 'equality' terms), then what happens next?  They are segregated.  They become a 'them'.

    Which is wrong. Again I'll state that I'm against any sort of thing because of the implications of your statement.

    I'm sincerely interested to know what this form of control that you say you have takes.  In some respects, we can 'take control' by actually ceding control, I think. By behaving in the way that the majority expects us to behave. 

    Since being diagnosed I can take control by understanding my condition. I now know I'm not "crazy", or delusional. I can manage my environment, the people I mix with, the places I go, and many other factors. It sounds like you have actual resentment towards me saying such a thing.

    That's your point of view about "we can "take control" by ceding control, by behaving the way the majority expects us to behave". I disagree. I'm not going to try and change your mind. It's not advice I'd give or something I'd endorse, but each to their own.

    Is that taking control?  Or is that denying ourselves - and in so doing, possibly damaging ourselves?

    Like I said, I wouldn't advise or endorse it.

    I'm not trying to create an argument.

    Ok, I personally would say you were trying to cause a little resentment in other users by taking my comments out of of context. You even conflated my opinion with racism, homophobia, plus oppression, and mistreatment of autistic people. Passive-aggressive drama maybe?

    I'm simply interested, because even though I understand my condition now... I still don't feel that it allows me to have any control: over my life, and over what's expected of me.

    I can't tell you what would work for you. I have expressed some things that are working for me, personally, in this thread. You don't seem to like the fact they work for me though.

    I certainly can't exercise any control over what other people think of me.

    No-one can.

    And if other people think ill of me, for whatever reason, because of the way that my condition manifests itself (i.e. they see me as rude, or anti-social, or stupid)... then how is that gaining control?

    You seem to be defining control as people being in awe of you. People have bigger challenges than that. 

    Tom feel free to think, say, or act anyway you want towards "neurotypicals". I wouldn't imagine myself as a person who is so important, or amazing, to tell you otherwise. For some reason you have decided to take everything I've written as a personal address, despite me stating it wasn't repeatedly. This shouldn't be about you and me.

    I think differently to you. You seem to have took issue with this. The way you have misquoted me, took me out of context, conflated my personal opinions with totally unrelated, sensitive issues, and even tried to position my point of view as something that disregards other people here is self-serving. I'm entitled to my point of view.

    It's a bit hypocritical to say that "neurotypicals" oppress autistics, because they think differently, then when I have a different opinion to you, do exactly what you say people do to you. I'm not mad, just a little perplexed. I'd hate to see what would happen if you were in the majority!

  • Why wouldn't it?  Just as we can use 'neurotypical' as some generalised derogatory term, why might not 'neurodiverse' also acquire negative or derogatory connotations?

    You were talking about the autistic community using neurodiverse as a negative or derogatory term......

    Interestingly, 'neurodiverse' doesn't seem to have acquired the same connotations amongst the autistic community.  You might think it would have done.

    That is what you said. Why would autistic people start calling using neurodiverse as a derogatory or negative term. You are conflating the use of "neurotypical" as a derogatory term with a situation that doesn't exist with the use of neurodiverse. I have no problem if you want to use "neurotypical" as a negative or derogatory term.

    Maybe it's not very commonly used.   'Autistic' is, though.  And you don't need me to spell out the kinds of connotations that get attributed to that word.  Most especially by non-autistics.

    Yes, but you were talking about it being used by the autistic community. I'd agree that that autistic can be used as an insult. Just as "neurotypical" can. As I've said you are free to say or think anything you like. Your actions and thoughts aren't a moral dilemma to me.

    I've heard it applied many times in the same way that someone might say 'God, that's so gay!'  So... what the f*** does that mean, exactly?

    I don't know why you are asking me. I don't use either. I'd say it's a bit unfair to imply I would, or conflate it with the issue we were discussing in relation to the OP's post.

    A word that I particularly hate now is 'mental'.  Perfectly legitimate word to use in many ways.  Mental capacity.  Mental health.  Mental arithmetic.

    Ok. It's not a word I personally use in the context you are referencing. I'd agree.

    And then we get 'We had a mental time last night', and 'My new girlfriend is mental', and 'I've had a mental day at work today.'

    I don't use it personally, but they aren't directing it at a group of people. That's the context of the conversation.

    'Neurotypical' seems pretty tame in comparison.

    It depends on the context. Conflating the two doesn't really make sense. If it seems tame to use it as an insult to you, that's fine. I'm not telling you what to do.

    'Meltdown'.  Another word I hate.  Another word that's acquired negative connotations.  We might as well say 'throwing a wobbly', 'throwing a tantrum', or 'getting out of our pram'.

    I've seen lots of users here use it. I myself use overload. I can remember you saying that you preferred it a while ago when it was discussed in a thread. I have no problem with other users who use meltdown though. You did actually say "getting out of my pram" yourself in this very thread. Again I see no point in conflating this with the discussion over the OP's post.

    You can use "neurotypical" as an derogatory, or negative word as much as you like, and form your own mindset about it. At no stage have I said otherwise. I've just stated my thoughts and opinions. Reading your exceptions to the words that you have conflated with the original issue, It's a little strange that you have such strong views on other people using words that "you don't like", but don't have a problem with it yourself.

  • All of my woes weren't down to a "neurotypical boogeyman", they were down to a condition, that now I understand it, I have some form of control over.

    I've thought about this a bit more.  And whilst I can accept what you're saying in one respect, I also cannot help but look at it in another way.  You may well think these are crass examples - taking things to extremes and over-stating the case.  But let's consider:

    A black man in the Jim Crow South.  Would he say 'All of my woes aren't down to a 'white boogeyman', they're down to the colour of my skin, and now that I understand it, I have some form of control.'?

    Or a gay person who has suffered homophobic persecution all of his life.  Would he say 'All of my woes weren't down to a 'gay-bashing boogeyman', they were down to my sexuality'?

    In other words, as I see it... 'It wasn't their fault.  It was mine.'

    All I'm trying to do here is to set the issue into a context that many on these forums - those who've perhaps, in your words, 'bought into the bullshit' - will probably understand.  The 'condition', and the issues it creates for many people, leads to the negative reaction to it... a negative reaction coming from a majority who do not understand the condition, and in many cases do not want to understand it.  They simply want to see it as 'wrong', and therefore in need either of sanction or correction.  And if the person with the condition refuses to be sanctioned or corrected (quite rightly, perhaps, in 'human rights' and 'equality' terms), then what happens next?  They are segregated.  They become a 'them'.

    I'm sincerely interested to know what this form of control that you say you have takes.  In some respects, we can 'take control' by actually ceding control, I think. By behaving in the way that the majority expects us to behave. 

    Is that taking control?  Or is that denying ourselves - and in so doing, possibly damaging ourselves?

    I'm not trying to create an argument.  I'm simply interested, because even though I understand my condition now... I still don't feel that it allows me to have any control: over my life, and over what's expected of me.  I certainly can't exercise any control over what other people think of me.  And if other people think ill of me, for whatever reason, because of the way that my condition manifests itself (i.e. they see me as rude, or anti-social, or stupid)... then how is that gaining control?

  • Why wouldn't it?  Just as we can use 'neurotypical' as some generalised derogatory term, why might not 'neurodiverse' also acquire negative or derogatory connotations?

    Maybe it's not very commonly used.   'Autistic' is, though.  And you don't need me to spell out the kinds of connotations that get attributed to that word.  Most especially by non-autistics.

    I've heard it applied many times in the same way that someone might say 'God, that's so gay!'  So... what the f*** does that mean, exactly?

    A word that I particularly hate now is 'mental'.  Perfectly legitimate word to use in many ways.  Mental capacity.  Mental health.  Mental arithmetic.

    And then we get 'We had a mental time last night', and 'My new girlfriend is mental', and 'I've had a mental day at work today.'

    'Neurotypical' seems pretty tame in comparison.

    'Meltdown'.  Another word I hate.  Another word that's acquired negative connotations.  We might as well say 'throwing a wobbly', 'throwing a tantrum', or 'getting out of our pram'.

  • Interestingly, 'neurodiverse' doesn't seem to have acquired the same connotations amongst the autistic community.  You might think it would have done.

    Do you mean negative connotations? Why would it?

    I think "neurodiverse" is barely used, well as to what I can see. I personally don't know what to think of it. It was originally used for people on the Autism Spectrum, but it seems that it has been adopted by people with other conditions, or it sort of took a life of it's own at some point.

    It's kind of a strange one, it seems to mean a lot of different things, to a lot of different people now.

  • Yes, you illustrate the point very well with this.  You could say it's applicable to all of the ways that humans 'differentiate' themselves from other humans and create stereotypes based on those differentiations - which can then lead to terms that were once perfectly neutral and useful taking on a negative and derogatory connotation.  Individual groups falling under a certain category can appropriate the term for themselves, maybe - but coming from the mouths of people not of that category, the term would be insulting.  

    So, yes... I can see how the term 'neurotypical', once probably quite a neutral and useful term for denoting a common form of neurological make-up, can have now acquired those negative connotations.

    Interestingly, 'neurodiverse' doesn't seem to have acquired the same connotations amongst the autistic community.  You might think it would have done.

  • It sounds like yourself, I, Plastic, and Good for You I Guess, have all experienced similar things at times. 

    It's not so much us I'm trying to convey my point across about though, it's the issue I'm more concerned with.

    I'm going to try to do my best with hypothetical stuff, and metaphores here so bear with me.........

    A bunch of human-like beings land on Earth, some are identified immediately, some don't grow up knowing. They are different however to the majority. They are 1% or Earth's population. Let's call them "Zeezax" for reference.

    Over a period of time their differences are identified, the majority starts observing, and in some cases accommodating their differences. The ones that don't grow up knowing struggle, or some manage somewhat.

    Slowly, a culture forms around their race, involving humans, and Zeezax. The Zeezax are suddenly more talked about, and have a more identifiable presence. Research is done, the Zeezax also start their own movement. The movement also includes humans.

    The Zeezax encounter problems assimilating, or just being left to their own business. There are things that humans do that they struggle with. Some Zeezax struggle less, some not at all, and some a lot.

    The humans observing the Zeezax give Zeezax a term for human behaviour and thinking, which is embraced as it gives both of them a practical term to refer to it. Let's call it "Huthink".

    However, over time, it becomes a term that can be used to express frustrations over the way humans think. Slowly it becomes an insult, and also is used by humans, plus Zeezax that think that the Zeezax, and humans are monlithic in nature. They have no difference in personality, preferences, tastes, culture, and traits. Humans always think the same, Zeezax too, and their natures can't mix.

    There are Zeezax that are disenfrachised, alienated, or have bad life experiences. Some Zeezax just don't want to mix, are in a bad place mentally, or may just not want to mix with humans. "Huthink" becomes either a term of fear, or an insult. Some Zeezax start to think more about "Huthink" than humans. This is also promoted by some humans in the Zeezax Community, and thrust upon Zeezax kids, also Zeezax adults in the movement. 

    The term "Huthink" is told by some humans, plus Zeezax, as a thing to be feared, loathed, and creates a wall to some that may not have that wall. The more militant Zeezax use it as an insult. When a Zeezax that isn't militant gets frustrated, or angry, they start using it as an insult. It starts to lose it's meaning, and is used in contexts that aren't related to it. The original use gets tainted, or even lost. The Zeezax that have friends, family, or collegues that are human, put everything down to "Huthinkers", mostly through no fault of there own. "Huthink" has taken a life of it's own now.

    Meanwhile, there are Zeezax who are recently identified, the "Huthink" dliemma thakes hold on them, and creates doubts about who they can trust, also about the troubles they have had in the past. They think "Is it "Huthink" that caused my problems, or is it because I can't "Huthink"?". There are also individuals who suspect they are Zeezax, people who have other problems, or identify with Zeezax thought, they also learn to see the "Huthinkers" as hostiles.

    Outside of the Zeezax community, humans who would otherwise sympathise, and accept Zeezax, see the "Huthink" rhetoric, and think "They really don't like us, *** them". Zeezax who have partners, friends, family, colleagues, and aquaintances, that have been pretty cool get frustrated, or distance themselves from the Zeezax movement. This slows down progress, and is counterproductive.

    They both start to see each other as two monolithic groups, just because of the cultural association of one word. In reality there are Zeezax, and humans that share individual qualities, that could be a stronger bond than just the monolithic things that they see binds them. This could be far more beneficial to the Zeezax, even the ones that still don't really like humans. They are still allowed to dislike the individual, or even the group. It works both ways, but it's best if both groups don't see each other as a single entity...............

    They might never completely work it out, the dialogue is open, but both sides need to WANT to understand.

    Again to anyone reading, I'm not bashing anyone who's ever thought bad about "NT's", or written about them. I'm just trying to highlight things I personally think need a bit of thought over.

    Anyway enough about Zeezax, and Huthink!

    I wasn't going to post again but I have been watching by email and everything is so familiar to me.

    That's the reason you should keep posting! We all learn stuff from each other here. I really didn't think about where epilepsy fits into it all either.

    Yes, we've had similar experiences.

    That's what makes this place tick! Even different ones. Sharing it is the best thing really.

  • Don't worry.  I think I was the one who got a bit out of my pram!  Sorry.  I kind of get my head fixed on something, which drains my rational thought processes!

    Yes, we've had similar experiences.

    I've learned a lot from reading this thread - including quite a bit about myself - so it's been useful.  I'm glad you posted it.  As Cloudy Mountains said, it's a discussion that needs to be had.

Reply
  • Don't worry.  I think I was the one who got a bit out of my pram!  Sorry.  I kind of get my head fixed on something, which drains my rational thought processes!

    Yes, we've had similar experiences.

    I've learned a lot from reading this thread - including quite a bit about myself - so it's been useful.  I'm glad you posted it.  As Cloudy Mountains said, it's a discussion that needs to be had.

Children
No Data