De-mystifying and De-pathologising Neurodiversity

As we approach March & April 2025, we’re facing two events that many within the neurodiversity movement dread; Neurodiversity Celebration Week (17th – 23rd March) and Autism Awareness Month (April). The time of year where misinformation is rife, and well-meaning neurotypicals make all the right noises and gestures to indicate their ‘awareness’ of ‘people with neurodiversity’ (more on this shortly). In this blog post, I’m going to walk you through some of the misconceptions around neurodiversity, neurodivergence, and the movement. Hopefully by the end of it you’ll understand the difference, why it’s important, and how to tell if a practitioner is truly neuroaffirming in their approach.

What is Neurodiversity?

The term ‘neurodiversity’ was originally popularised by Judy Singer in her 1998 Sociology honours thesis, and later book chapter. At that point, Singer noted this ‘neurological diversity’ as an augment to the social model of disability, and an addition to the socio-political categories of class, gender, and race. Importantly, in these early days, neurodiversity was discussed in response to advocacy by what we now recognise as low-support need autistic people, occurring alongside the technological revolution of the late 1990s. However, the term predates Singer, with the concept of ‘neurological diversity’ apparently developed and utilised on online community discussion boards in 1996, and evidenced in cross-disability advocacy pre-1993.

Regardless of its conception, neurodiversity initially began as a theory insofar as it provided a philosophical perspective for the infinite possible differences in the neurology and neurocognitive functioning of human beings. However, with advances in science, we’ve been able to map structural differences between brains, and identify variation and variability in the human brain. In this sense, neurodiversity is an undeniable biological fact. Theory no longer, human brains have evolved with unending variability and diversity – which helps explain why some people have wonderfully artistic abilities, while others are superstar athletes, and others can solve maths problems in an instant. Just like in nature, diversity of the human brain is an advantage to our species, allowing us to adapt and survive over thousands of years.

Importantly, one person alone cannot be neurodiverse. To use an analogy, we might think in-terms of domesticated dogs. There are many different breeds of dogs (i.e. huskies, border collies, groodles, rottweilers etc), but despite the different breeds, they are all dogs. The diversity in dog breed, when re-applied to the human brain is comparable to neurodiversity. All domesticated dogs are diverse, all human brains are neurodiverse in the collective.

Therefore, it’s incorrect to state a person can ‘have neurodiversity’. Similarly, autism and ADHD are not ‘types of neurodiversity’. We’ll come back to this point shortly….

What is the Neurodiversity Paradigm?

The neurodiversity paradigm offers an approach on this natural variability in human cognition and ability, proposing that all brains are valuable regardless of ability. Dr Nick Walker breaks this down into three fundamental principles:

1) Neurodiversity is a critical and natural form of human diversity.

2) The notion of ‘Normal’ or ‘healthy’ brains, or a ‘correct’ way of neurocognitive functioning is a wholly cultural construct. This belief is just as ridiculous as the idea of one ‘normal’ or ‘correct’ ethnicity, gender, sexuality, culture or body size. Just as biodiversity is natural, so is the variation in neurocognition across humanity.

3) The social commentary and dynamics relating to neurodiversity are similar to those around other examples of human diversity, i.e. ethnicity, gender, sexuality, culture, body size etc. They are rooted in social power, inequality, and oppression of the ‘normative’ human experience.

With this in mind, the paradigm refutes the idea of ‘disordered’ neurocognitions, instead conceptualising differences of human experience. The paradigm would also reject notions of ‘treatment’ or ‘cures’ for neurotype variations such as autism or ADHD.

How did the Neurodiversity Paradigm become the Neurodiversity Movement?

The neurodiversity movement is simply the social activism, and civil rights movement that emerged from the philosophy outlined by the neurodiversity paradigm. Using the principles of neurodiversity, autistic advocates began to fight the stigma associated with autism, ADHD, and learning disorders. The movement seeks acceptance and inclusion of everyone, regardless of their neurocognitive profile, minority status, or differences from the norm.

However, a common misconception is that autism rights and the neurodiversity movements are one in the same. They are not. Put simply, there are advocates for autistic rights who still consider autism under the medical model as a ‘disorder’ (for example, those who refer to ‘ASD’ or ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder’). This approach is at odds with the core philosophy of the neurodiversity paradigm, as it pathologises the neurocognitive differences of autistic people as something that is ‘wrong’ or socially unacceptable.

One further point of clarification applies to supports for people with differences like epilepsy. A criticism often levied at the neurodiversity movement is the rejection of medical ‘treatments’. This is a common misunderstanding. The movement does not fully refute medicine as a discipline, merely the intention to ‘change’ or ‘cure’ a person’s neurotype. Both the paradigm and movement acknowledge the suffering associated with differences like epilepsy. Importantly, the movement explicitly allows medical interventions where appropriate. However, the movement does argue that any biomedical interventions need to be offered on terms that support neurodivergent people to thrive, rather than seek to normalise their neural differences to align with social expectations.

Additionally, loud voices have critiqued the movement for consisting primarily of advocates who are ‘less impaired’ as unrepresentative of those with greater disability and associated decreased independence. However, the movement seeks to advocate for and include all people, regardless of disability, to de-pathologise all forms of identity. Therefore, it is possible for a person’s neurotype to be both disabling, and also a variation in neurocognitive expression. Both can be true at the same time. Instead, the movement rallies against eradication and eugenical approaches that seek to ‘cure’ such variation – advocating for support, accommodations and acceptance, regardless of an individual’s presentation.

How is Neurodiversity different from Neurodivergence?

The American autistic activist Kassiane Asasumasu coined ‘neurodivergent’ and ‘neurodivergence’ as the opposite of ‘neurotypical’. These terms refer to having a brain, or cognitive function that are substantially different from what society considers to be ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ standards. Neurotypical people, by contrast, function cognitively in ways that align with the normative expectations of society.

There are several examples of neurodivergence. While autism and ADHD are perhaps the most widely and colloquially discussed, conditions like epilepsy and multiple sclerosis also fall under the same neurodivergent umbrella. Similarly, mental health conditions including depression, schizophrenia, or personality disorders are also neurodivergent. Neurodivergence can be genetic (such as autism or dyscalculia), acquired (such as trauma, or from long-term cannabis use), or a combination of the two. As you can see, it’s really not very straightforward to work out who is or is not neurodivergent!

In short, for our purposes, all autistic people are neurodivergent; but not all neurodivergent people are autistic.

To go back to our dog example, let’s say we introduced a wild dingo into our group of domesticated dogs. The dingo would be in the minority, whereas the domesticated dogs would be in the majority. So, the dingo is analogous to neurodivergent people, who are different from the dominant social standards of the group of dogs. The domesticated dogs, albeit made up of different breeds correspond to the neuro-majority as they are ‘typical’ or ‘normal’ by the standards of the group. In human groups, this would be a group of neurotypical people. All the dogs, and the dingo are diverse, but only the dingo is divergent from the norm.

What is Intersectionality in terms of Neurodivergence?

If you’re still reading along, thank you and well done – these are often uncomfortable and complicated concepts. However, there is a little more! To be truly accepting of neurodivergence and variations of neurocognitive ability, it is crucial to consider how it overlaps (or intersects) with other identities, such as race, gender, sexuality, and culture, which are frequently marginalised by society. Only when we consider the distinct experience of overlapping social identities, can we understand how privilege and oppression influence a person’s experience of the world. For example, the experience of a white autistic man will likely contrast starkly from a black or brown autistic woman, and even further from a black or brown autistic trans person, due to the extent of social exclusion and marginalisation of the intersecting identity.

The reason why intersectional approaches are important to understanding neurodivergence is because no one person’s experience of being in the world can be the same. That means that their experiences, manifestations, and tolerance of distress will be different dependent on the individual. For example, a young gay man of south-asian heritage, who is also an ADHDer may find connection and acceptance in technology-focused workplace. With an interest in coding and problem solving, his need for novelty and divergent thinking will likely be viewed as a strength by his peers and superiors. Despite the intersectionality multiple minority identities, he may never feel the need to seek support as he is affirmed by his environment.

Conversely, a post-menopausal, white woman in a larger body who feels compelled to engage in binge eating behaviours at night might be extremely distressed to learn of their ADHD neurotype later in life. They may need support to unpack a lifetime of unmet needs, work through the shame of diverging from a socially acceptable body type, and find alternative, satisfying ‘dopamine hits’ to reduce the distressing night-time overeating.

This is why it’s so very important to consider neurodivergent people as individuals, rather than a homogenous group experiencing the world in exactly the same way.

How can I tell if a Therapist is Neuroaffirming?

Neurodiversity-affirming, or Neuroaffirming approaches to therapy and assessment are based upon the fundamental principles of the neurodiversity paradigm discussed earlier. Using this approach, neuroaffirming clinicians would never offer to ‘treat autism’, and instead would approach the distress experienced by autistic folx as a function of social oppression, and might seek to support the improvement of overall mental health through therapy.

Unfortunately, the lack of formal, agreed upon definition of neuroaffirming approaches to therapy can be problematic for therapists (I promise we’re working on it….). This means there’s lot of disparate viewpoints, differences in language, and overall confusion on who does and does not work from a neuroaffirming perspective. It also means that some well-meaning services and clinicians will claim to be neuroaffirming, but still align with the medical model by using terms like ‘ASD’ or ‘disorder’. The co-opting of advocacy language to sell services is not only harmful and hurtful to the neurodiversity movement and paradigm, but ultimately to the clients we serve.

The Burrows Psychology has outlined our approach to neuroaffirming care and supports, and how we commit to acting in alignment with the principles of the neurodiversity paradigm here. There’s also a handy little graphic we popped together on our Instagram account to give you an idea of what to look out for.

In short, here’s the principles of our practice from a neuroaffirming position.

1) Safety: The foundation of neuroaffirming practice. This includes physical, psychological, spiritual, social, and other forms that contribute to client safety and comfort.

2) Authenticity: Being authentic, open and honest in all communication. Honouring and prioritising lived experience.

3) Collaborative: Approaching support and care collaboratively, rather than from a position of expertise and power.

4) Strengths based: Assumed competence and strengths (rather than deficit) of all people. Active challenge of harmful stereotypes and stigma.

5) Equity, Respect, Dignity and Inclusion: In access, communication, and services. This extends to supporting you to find alternate appropriate supports, where deemed necessary.

6) Identity Affirming: Holistic understanding and support of identity cultivation, from an intersectional perspective. De-pathologisation of self-concept.

7) Rejection of pathology and the medical model: Difference rather than disorder. Support rather than treatment. Radical acceptance of you and your beautiful brain. Advocating for client needs within wider care teams.

Seeking support for Neurodivergence?

If you, or somebody that you love is seeking support with understanding your neurotype including autism, ADHD, OCD, or other forms of neurodivergence, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us here at The Burrows. We offer neurodiversity affirming therapy, assessment, coaching, and consultancy services, with the aim of providing a truly individualised approach that meets your needs. If you’re uncertain what approach might be best, we’re also more than happy to set up a quick 15-minute phone call to chat through some options and ensure you feel we’re the right fit for you.

I hope that this post has been helpful in developing your understanding of neurodiversity, and how it differs from neurodivergence. If in doubt, get in touch with us at hello@theburrowspsych.com.au.

Kirsten Perrins (she/her) is a neurodivergent (AuDHD) psychologist working from Naarm (Melbourne). She is passionate about affirming care and supports for all neurodivergent folx. She is compassionate, quirky and lots of fun.... seen here meeting her sensory needs by laying on the grass and feeling the sun on her face.

References & Sources

Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591-1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871

Chapman, R. (2020). The reality of autism: On the metaphysics of disorder and diversity. Philosophical Psychology, 33(6), 799-819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1751103

Dekker M. (2023). A correction on the origin of the term ‘neurodiversity’. Independent living on the autistic spectrum: Where those who are different find that they’re not alone. Martijn ‘McDutchie’ Dekker’s blog.

https://www.inlv.org/2023/07/13/neurodiversity-origin.html

Legault, M., Bourdon, JN. & Poirier, P. (2021) From neurodiversity to neurodivergence: The role of epistemic and cognitive marginalization. Synthese, 199, 12843–12868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03356-5

Mallipeddi NV, VanDaalen RA. (2022) Intersectionality within critical autism studies: A narrative review. Autism Adulthood, 4(4), 281-289.

https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0014

Russell, G. (2020). Critiques of the neurodiversity movement. In: Kapp, S. (Eds) Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement (pp. 287-303). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_21

Singer J. (1999). ‘Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? From a ‘problem with no name’ to a new category of disability’. In Corker M., French S. (Eds.), Disability Discourse (pp. 59–67). Open University Press.

Walker, N (2021) Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.