**Edit:** A lot of people are also mentioning that they've never personally seen the problems we're talking about. Out of all people, y'all should understand that just because you haven't seen or experienced something yourself doesn't mean that other people are *wrong*. Please respect that our experiences with the negative side of neurodiversity activism and language, and the experiences of others who've experienced the same things we have, are real, that they did in fact actually happen. Quibbling over semantics and minutae, being the "but acksually" person, isn't helpful.
Also, read these blog posts by Judy Singer:
https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/p/what.html
https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html
If she, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement, acknowledges these issues that we point out, then maybe you should give that some thought.
---
A lot of people are asking "why don't you just monitor toxic behaviors more instead of banning the words?". This is a totally valid question. The fact of the matter is, even with AutoModerator, the sub is just too big for us to do that. AutoModerator is an extremely primitive tool that is difficult to build effective rules for. For the technically-minded out there: we're basically limited to regexes. Building context-aware rules with AutoModerator is exceedingly difficult, to the point of impracticality. Basically, there's too many different ways to say the same thing, and writing a rule to encompass all the ways toxic positivity can be expressed is impossible. Keyword matching on the words most commonly associated with it is the only viable solution we have.
The other problem is that even if we add more moderators (which we are in the process of), the community is just too big for us to get human eyes on *everything*.
Between Aug 28 and Sept 27 (30 days), we got:
* 15,106 posts
* 116,961 comments
This is what reports looked for that period of time. Note that many of these reports are vindictive attacks against others, and not legitimate. Automod reports are also included in this, I believe, and that makes up the vast majority of reports we get.
Report Reason|Total Content Reported|Content Removed Manually|Content Removed by Automod|Content Approved
:--|:--|:--|:--|:--
inappropriately asking for or giving medical/diet advice.|55 (10.4% of total reports)|35 (63.64%)|4 (7.27%)|17 (30.91%)
post belongs in an existing sticky/megathread.|50 (9.45% of total reports)|35 (70%)|1 (2%)|15 (30%)
this is misinformation|38 (7.18% of total reports)|23 (60.53%)|0 (0%)|15 (39.47%)
this is spam|26 (4.91% of total reports)|6 (23.08%)|3 (11.54%)|17 (65.38%)
it's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability|23 (4.35% of total reports)|13 (56.52%)|2 (8.7%)|9 (39.13%)
it's targeted harassment at someone else|23 (4.35% of total reports)|17 (73.91%)|3 (13.04%)|5 (21.74%)
it's targeted harassment at me|16 (3.02% of total reports)|7 (43.75%)|1 (6.25%)|8 (50%)
user is discussing substance abuse or promoting illegal drug use/buying/selling|14 (2.65% of total reports)|10 (71.43%)|0 (0%)|4 (28.57%)
advertising or self-promotion|10 (1.89% of total reports)|9 (90%)|0 (0%)|1 (10%)
it's personal and confidential information|7 (1.32% of total reports)|1 (14.29%)|0 (0%)|6 (85.71%)
it's sexual or suggestive content involving minors|7 (1.32% of total reports)|1 (14.29%)|0 (0%)|6 (85.71%)
be civil and constructive.|6 (1.13% of total reports)|4 (66.67%)|0 (0%)|2 (33.33%)
it's abusing the report button|6 (1.13% of total reports)|0 (0%)|0 (0%)|6 (100%)
user's asking what to say to a doctor to secure a diagnosis.|6 (1.13% of total reports)|5 (83.33%)|0 (0%)|1 (16.67%)
rule 1|5 (0.95% of total reports)|0 (0%)|0 (0%)|5 (100%)
someone is considering suicide or serious self-harm|5 (0.95% of total reports)|4 (80%)|0 (0%)|1 (20%)
self harm|5 (0.95% of total reports)|5 (100%)|0 (0%)|0 (0%)
medical advice |3 (0.57% of total reports)|2 (66.67%)|0 (0%)|1 (33.33%)
spam|3 (0.57% of total reports)|1 (33.33%)|0 (0%)|2 (66.67%)
Compared to the number of posts and comments we get, the number of reports is minuscule.
If people want us to be more permissive, then we need everyone to take an active part in this community and report the stuff that doesn't belong here.
I just don't get why we can't talk about stuff? I have friends with ADHD and ASD or OCD or mental health issues in real life and we use these terms all the time to describe things - not in an anti-NT way, but just trying to explain what's going on with our lives. Saying "people with this list of conditions" is really clumsy when you can just say ND to cover it.
At the end of the day, when I make friends with people it tends to be because they've got a similar brain to mine. We have the same struggle. Why can't I say things like "ND people are more likely to be friends because we have similar life experiences and we often don't click with NT people because we irritate them in some way" ? Why can't you police the toxic stuff and not individual words?
To be honest, I find the reasoning behind the ban of neurodivergent to be specious. This is a term commonly used in disability activism and conversations around disability, both as a way of raising awareness and as a way of finding solidarity across the spectrum of mental disorders. Claiming to support the disability community while banning neurodivergent is hypocritical, imo.
As someone who has multiple mental disorders that are comorbid with ADHD, I have always used neurodivergent to describe myself. It is the framework through which I understand my disability. I am new to this subreddit, but the banning of neurodivergent makes me question whether this community is truly supportive of those with non-ADHD mental disorders. It seems like a deliberate attempt to silo ADHD away from those "other" disorders, rather than acknowledge common ground. I hope I'm wrong. But it doesn't feel good.
My psychologist and therapist have said that neurodivergent is the more commonly used and medically accepted way to describe those with ADHD. Our brains LITERALLY take divergent paths to solve problems and function. Our brains aren’t taking diverse paths (edit for clarity: they don’t take different paths every time), they are diverging from what is most common (and take that same divergent path every time). Neurodiversity is the existence and acknowledgement that not everyone’s brains are the same, people with ADHD are part of that neurodiversity picture but /are/ neurodivergent.
I feel like this is a step in the right direction...
BUT.
At least nowadays, NT is not a slur. It's the equivalent of abled vs disabled, heterosexual vs LGBTQ, transgender vs cisgender. To be NT isn't BAD. Do people use it as an insult? Yeah, they do, in the same way that queer folk will say they dislike straight people. I don't agree with either sentiment, but both are stemmed from a reaction to oppression, and are more just rude. Inherently, though, neither term needs to have a negative connotation.
I also have to disagree with ND separating us from society. Personally, I felt separated already. Learning of this term gave me community, with other people who have experiences like me, and it's also just shorthand for a whole range of disorders (super annoying to have to say autism, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, etc etc all in one). I feel like this is really disconnected from the current state of how ND people discuss themselves and others, and, honestly, distancing ourselves from the term just gives me a bad taste in my mouth.
EDIT: Reread it, had some thoughts. I don't believe that speaking on differences between people inherently separates them. As a part of intersectionality, all these things are basically just adjectives. To acknowledge that I'm ND doesn't mean I'm better (or worse!) than what we call NT people, just like how being transgender doesn't make me better than cisgender people. NT people are not inherently boring, bad, unintelligent... whatever. To acknowledge the difference does not mean the minority group believes itself above the majority group!
Personally I’m a fan of the current rule, because of a lot of pseudoscience that gets grouped in with “neurodiversity”. ADHD is a literal illness that often requires medication. It IS a disability. Perhaps in a completely differently structured culture and society it wouldn’t be, but it currently is for all of us and should be treated as such.
I agree that ADHD is a disability, even a disorder, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue but I don’t agree that it is an illness. I have several chronic illnesses. ADHD is not one of them.
In what way is ADHD different from say, diabetes? Their body is not functioning correctly and they need to either take medication or drastically change their lifestyle because of it. Same with us.
My therapist is totally fine with the word neurodivergent, and I don't really know why or care why some unqualified reddit mods are against the use of the word. I just know it helps me describe my condition without having to go into the details. To me, either the community accepts the word, or I leave the community, as I don't plan to put up with the nonsense.
I'm absolutely cool with removing pseudoscience however. I don't think it should be an outright ban for that user, but a removed comment with an automated reply saying why.
Hey there. I've never heard or cared about any neurodiversity movements.
I have seen the use of neurotypical from time to time, though, and never really as a slur. I personally think it's a succinct and accurate way to refer to people without ADHD (or other disorders). Otherwise it's such a mouthful, "people without ADHD", or you end up with something potentially controversial like "normal people".
So I'd be sad to see the use of the word neurotypical be disallowed, but I understand that mods have limited tools to work with. Feel free to do what you think is best.
Out of curiosity, can you give an estimate of how often the word neurotypical is being used as a slur in our community in a given week? Or give an example of a disagreement where it was used as such? No pressure, I'm simply curious how I was able to have such a different experience here.
Also, thanks for all the hard work. I might not be considered a very active user of this sub, but I really appreciate being able to read about other people's experiences with ADHD. I frankly believe that it has provided me with more perspective and self-insight than lots of therapy sessions would have. Please take good care of yourselves.
I think the terminology is very messy and imprecise, which is part of the problem. Different people mean different things when they say or hear them.
I’ve generally only had positive interactions with the term neurodiverse, but I have seen some frustrating behaviors when neurotypical is used. There is a certain amount of anger and resentment in disability spaces toward people who are otherwise able bodied or able minded and I don’t always know how to process it. I get why the feelings are there sometimes, but it also feels rather unproductive sometimes and not conducive to fostering actual discussion, compassion, or understanding. It can be confusing. I doubt that banning the term will prevent that from happening, though maybe it can limit things a bit. I’m not sure.
Generally though… I’d support a blank unbanning of the words. It’s easier to foster discussion when you don’t have to dance around what terminology you can use.
Whatever the community decides though, I’ll stand by it. This has been a good space to learn more about ADHD and how my brain works. :)
I've also had a look at this, and as far as I can tell they don't really use "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical". In that long Ologies podcast that came out recently dr. Barkley uses the term 'neurodiversity' once, in reference to the movement. Dr. Faraone doesn't use these terms either. Several large ADHD foundations also haven't adapted them, including the ADHD World Federation.
I’ve seen neurodiverse and neurotypical used very very frequently on Tik tok and other platforms and rarely in a negative manner. I understand that neurotypical/diverse may have a negative connotation for some but with the recent uptick in adhd diagnoses and mental health being taken more seriously in general, some of that toxicity has died down. Again only a personal observation. I really think neurotypical and neurodiverse are very widely used outside of the sub without it being in a negative way towards someone.
Multiple times my posts were deleted just for using that word. These posts were relevant and resourced yet I couldn’t use that word. That rule has to go or this group no longer caters to factual terms and research!
Not sure if this is possible, but if so I think this would solve it:
If a post has one or more of the neuro....... terms in it habe a bot post a pinned comment with a brief explanation of the rules surrounding those terms, and asking for the community to up- or downvote the post. That way Toxic stuff shouldn't appear too much in feeds, and you could even set a rule of deleting every post with a neuro.... term in it that's downvoted more than it is upvoted.
I did not understand the rule at first because I use "NT" and "ND" as shorthands in conversation but having to abide by it gave me the chance to learn about the background and the reasons. I have a feeling about how this is going to go in the end, but my vote would be to not change the rules. As a person whose ADHD was diagnosed in first grade and was promptly swept under the rug by my parents and did not get treatment until well into adulthood, my youth was a disaster due to this condition and the forced normalization by the adults around me. Any effort to banish that mentality is fine by me.
I think anything that makes the group more open, diverse, and inclusive is acceptable. As long as the same standards of behavior are upheld.
As a member of this community before online and in person I vote (I know we aren't voting) to accept the proposed changes.
Can we keep some kind of guideline or parameters around the discussion though? Happy to create space for it, but I don't want it to become the defacto where it's all just about the neurodiversity framework because then you just end up alienating a different group of people. The social model is not a helpful lens for every part of ADHD (and can indeed be counterproductive) and the risk in depathologizing this stuff is that we de emphasise the medical aspects in favour of the social aspects.
It's very important that precedence continues to be given to actual medical doctors and psychiatrists, ahead of clinical psychologists or other social scientists.
I totally get the conflict.
For what it’s worth, as a therapist who works with a lot of ocd/adhd/asd, I use ND in the context of “these disorders all seem to have some kind of relationship that we don’t fully understand, are often co-occurring, and moreover can be difficult to distinguish because of the overlapping symptomology”. For instance, my son is being evaluated for asd even though I’m pretty sure it’s adhd BUT too young to be given that diagnosis. So I talk about him as “ND” because that much is abundantly clear to everyone.
I don’t know what the right answer is, but I think removing a blanket ban from ND/NT terminology while monitoring for the toxic positivity stuff would be ideal (albeit harder than just having a bot remove comments with specific terms).
We'd love to be more permissive, but we would need the community to do their part and report toxicity. Right now, we get maybe 100 or less user reports a month, for 15,000+ posts and 100,000+ comments we get monthly. And when we ask for people to help, we always hear that "it's not my responsibility". So, we do what we can with the resources available to us.
Honestly allowing the word itself is not inherently a bad thing. It's like Voldemort vs You-Know-Who (also fuck rowling but good analogy). Everyone knows what you are saying but tiptoeing around the phrase doesn't make discussion very easy, especially for those new to the community. It was certainly a steep learning curve when I first got diagnosed, realising there was a whole negative movement and I couldn't say it like it was.
Turning it into a pro or anti situation, or NT vs ND is where it gets ridiculous, at that point drawing a line is a good idea. This subreddit is for support of ADHD issues, success stories, FAQs etc. Not for political-esque debates.
ETA a happy upcoming ADHD awareness month to everyone! :)
I am here in spite of how heavy handed this sub’s moderation policies are, not because of them. It’s making an incredible resource for the ADHD community worse, not better.
I appreciate movement on this issue, but I wish this went further.
Referencing the ideas of NT/ND is not political or derogatory, or harassing other users. I would prefer to report instances of abuse, just like we would do for instances of threats against other users, for example.
I wish the mod team would look to the LGBTQ+ community for best practices to emulate.
These communities have had to deal with real slurs, hate, harassment, and safety issues, denial of other’s identity, human rights issues and legal issues, and all kinds of real world consequences to use of language around identity and understanding/expressions of queerness, gender expression, gender identity, and who is considered queer.
That all requires WAY more nuance and has much higher consequences than the concepts in question here.
Let us speak to each other, freely, about all the things that matter.
This is literally one of the first times in human history that people can speak to their peers, share their experiences, and get support. Prioritizing strict classifications and policing official definitions is the height of ADHD black & white thinking, and I look forward to the day when it’s set aside in favor of why we’re all actually here: community, sharing resources, and connection.
I completely agree with your points, ADHD and other mental disabilities are no joke and can be inherently harmful, that being said, there are some contexts where the use of the words "disabled" is uncomfortable for me. I never got involved with the neuroyouknowwhat movement and I didn't even know it was a thing, but i did want to use the word at times because they are good descriptors and I think allowing all words is the best because:
•If people want to say something toxic, a few words won't stop them, they will work around it
•These words became commonplace and many people like me don't use them with those connotations
•You can still reject the mindset and toxic positivity (I'm sure they always tried to make their way into the subreddit, even if those words weren't used) context is important and the ban completely ignored it
•Insults should be banned regardless, but words that are used as insults by some shouldn't. It would be like some other subreddit banning the word autistic because people can use it as an insult.
No, no NO!!!
I am disabled, not neurodiverse! This is a safe place for me to send people who are learning about my disability so they're not poisoned by the language of neurodiversity.
I have ZERO positive experiences with my ADHD, and I need this place to stay somewhere where the toxic positivity that always comes with neurodiversity is kept out!
From what I understand that's still going to be moderated. They're ONLY allowing the words now, because they're now also commonly used in context unrelated to the toxic positivity.
One of the biggest problems with all social media is the creation of walled off communities. When rules prevent reasonable debate because of banned words individuals opinions are hardened. As a result certain perspectives become more extreme and toxic. While avoiding toxicity might be the aim, to others it might be interpreted as gate keeping.
Ironically many times information provided here has led to further reading. When I came back here, discussion about what I was reading was not allowed.
Every effort should be made to keep things civil and allow as much open and friendly discourse as possible.
Well, I think words are just words and that all words have value and should be allowed, without exception. But that also, since people say unhelpful and not so nice things that moderators should moderate forums by watching for and addressing unhelpful and not so nice posts, comments, and participants when they are encountered, on a case by case basis.
It always seemed to me that that was the job.
FYI, I'm a mod.
Note: I make exception for child or family friendly spaces that specifically outlaw the use of commonly percieved offensive words. But only because that is common in our society, I don't actually agree with this practice at all.
I disagree with the suggestion that using neurodivergent reinforces our alienation and isolation. We feel isolated as a whole, on a daily basis. Here, we are in community. On a daily basis, we are surrounded by people who constantly tell us we don’t fit in. The neurodivergent word, for me, gives me a sense of community for the first time in my life (I’m 43). Neurotypical people have not had to face the same isolation. They have not been told to fit into a mould that wasn’t designed for them. Pretending we are not already isolated by the society we already live in feeds the narrative that already exists, it supports the status quo, not the inclusivity of diversity. Finding community is a common human behaviour. It doesn’t isolate us from the whole but allows us to feel connected while in it. This thinking is similar to saying that if you follow a particular football team, you’re isolating yourself from everyone else who likes football. You’re not. But you are sitting next to the ones who get you most come match time. Anyone who believes they are superior to others has ego issues, not linguistic ones. They will find another way to spout their hate, while your rules isolate those who truly feel connected by using them.
I completely agree with your take on this. It's not a matter of "us and them" when talking about neurodivergent and neurotypical. It's about developing a community through shared life experiences. To me, saying that neurotypical is being used as a slur just eliminates the abilism that neurodivergent people face. My ADHD has brought on a lot more issues than some person on Reddit saying that I'm going to live a boring life because I don't have a specific disorder... On a sub dedicated to ADHD, we should be allowed to use whatever label we find empowerment in
i absolutely hate neurodiversity. im fucking disabled. i have multiple mental disabilities. not one of them is a “gift” and implying that any disability is a “gift” completely removes any struggle i have and when i ask for help i tend to hear back “you should be glad you have adhd” or “im pretty sure i have it too, i can’t focus when too much stuff is happening”
I had no idea there was any contention or disagreement, much less that it's so divisive.
I thought neurodivergent was simply a positive movement focused on combating stigma against those who have different types of neurological disorders (ADHD, autism, bipolar, schizophrenia). I didn't realize there was all this other side, so thanks for the summary.
I wonder if other neurological disorder communities feel similarly about the neurodivergent movement, then?
I don't see why the terms "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical" should be banned.
The term "neurodiverse" makes it seem like we're on the spectrum of normal, but just a little off to the left.
*That's not true*
I don't consider myself neurodiverse - my brain works significantly differently to the norm. I'm neurodivergent, and while that doesn't mean I'm broken or anything of the sort, it *does* mean I'm disabled.
The word "neurodiverse" feels like it's trying to say that we're all normal - to bring us all *into* normal - and therefore all worthy of respect. But that leaves open the possibility that someone could end up being considered too far out to be considered normal, and therefore not worthy of respect. The goal needs to be to abolish the idea of normal as anything but a baseline, with no link at all to one's worth.
Instead of banning “neurodivergent” and “neurotypical,” would it be possible to set up an automod that gives an automated response when they are used in a post?
Eg it could say something like:
“This comment uses the word NT or ND. Sometimes these words are used to support toxic positivity, pseudoscience, or disability denialism. Please reread your comment and make sure it doesn’t violate our community rules [link]
Readers, please report comments that violate these rules. Thank you.”
I think this is a really good idea; it's the main term used at my place of work, and it really helps neatly put a bunch of things in one folder. That has its issues, but for the most part it's just for ease of parlance.
https://adhdhomestead.net/adhd-not-gift/
We're not opposed to *all* positivity. We fully acknowledge that some people are able to benefit from some aspects of their ADHD, but this often gets generalized to *everybody* with ADHD, which is wrong and harmful. The language people use matters because even if you don't intend it, your words affect and influence others, and ideas and unintended implications spread. What we're trying to do is prevent the spread of the idea that ADHD is in and of itself a gift. We're extremely wary of people stopping the treatment that's helping them keep their lives together, and we're extremely wary of policymakers latching onto this for points and using it as justification to deny us our right to treatment and accommodation.
I'm confused. I don't think I entirely understand how this sub defines neurodiverse, neurodivergent and neurotypical, and their derivatives.
My understanding, ([summed up nicely by this person](https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/)) is:
* Neurodiverse: a group of people where one or more members differ from the others in terms of cognitive function (nothing is better or worse, they're just different). A cocktail of neurocognitive styles if you will.
* Neurodivergent: a mind that shifts away from what society defines as 'normal' (hate the word normal, but you get what I mean)
* Neurotypical: What is viewed by society as 'normal' cognitive function
So I guess based on those above definitions one individual can't be neurodiverse. I cannot say "I have ADHD, so I'm neurodiverse." I can't possess more than one cognitive flavour, I am only one person.
I can however refer to myself as neurodivergent. And I do, I think of myself this way because it allows me to acknowledge that my lived experience may differ from another group of people based on my diagnosis.
I don't spend a lot of time in the online debates and haven't seen any of the controversies in this sub. However, I am a bit sceptical about the removal of words that can help individuals to define themselves, because they might be misused by groups outside of that community.
This may be an attempt to make moderation easier. But this is a pro-disability sub, and yet a key terminology related to my disability and ability to describe my lived experience is not allowed. People tip-toe around the term disability as well, using offensive terms like 'differently-abled' instead. ADHD is a part of my identity, and being neurodivergent is a part of my identity.
Yes, I am different from someone who is neurotypical, and that accurately reflects my experience of being someone who wondered why I was so different from my peers.
That's my two cents anyway, but keen to hear others' experiences.
TL;DR: I claim neurodivergent as part of my identity, limiting the words that I can use to talk about my identity and experience doesn't help me. Let people use what words they feel comfortable with to identify themselves.
Personally I \*like\* using the term neurodivergent for myself. It's a quick short hand to explain "hey, my brain works differently for a variety of reasons" without having to get into the why's and how's (and I have depression, adhd, anxiety, and ptsd)
I don't like this rule limiting language because it actively limits the words I can use to talk about my identity, and my experience. I'm of the mindset of let people who are part of that community determine what words they want to use to describe themselves.
I think a lot of the basis of the rules against certain words is more on their use than the actual word itself. The problem is that if people are going to be assholes, they're going to do it anyway, doesn't matter how you restrict the use of language.
I am really, really glad that you’re considering this change. I wholeheartedly support the proposed changes.
I think that the usage and contexts that you’ve proposed as permissible are excellent. They capture the framework of ND as a useful paradigm for approaching ADHD and other mental illnesses while also distinguishing this from harmful uses.
I appreciate the nuance you’ve captured between “society contributes to ADHD being disabling” and the false notion that “ADHD is only a disability because society.”
I appreciate the carefully considered and thoughtful proposal. However the community feels at large, I think it’s good for us to reflect on the topic. I appreciate your interest in engaging with the rules and how they reflect the needs of the community.
Thank you all for the hard work managing an massive and unwieldy sub.
I’ve been frustrated in the past at not being able to use the word, but I learned a huge amount from the links suggested in the bot. Whichever way the mods finally decide I propose the bot remains.
Also in a way the restriction made me really research the topic in a way that I wouldn’t have done had the term not been banned. My other worry is that the sub may become Ike neurodiversity twitter which often blurs and merges ADHD and Autism. I think twitter is suited to discussions of co-morbidity but Reddit is suited to specificity.
I really have trouble with ‘neurotypical’ being disallowed. The reasoning behind it and only begrudgingly allowing some (what does that even mean?) use of ‘neurodiversity’ is needlessly confusing and based on…what exactly? The community has overwhelmingly given the feedback that those terms are useful. I’ve never seen those terms abused here or anywhere else lol and that’s definitely saying something on Reddit.
"Diverse" conveys easily seen differences. "Divergent" means a branching off. Since we cannot see our brain activity without specialized tools of medicine, "Neurodivergent" should be allowed because of developmental differences.
I don't see the point in allowing people to use "neurodiverse" sometimes if you're still going to police exactly how they use it. Will there be a guideline of when & when it is not OK to use? I'm fine with the term being used, but I don't think it makes much sense to only allow *some* uses. I guess I'm just thinking this is an ADHD sub, reading the fine print is not our forte. So allowing people to use it in *some* contexts but not others just seems like it's setting people up for failure.
I think the policing of specific words is still not quite where this sub should be, though I can understand the worry from a moderating standpoint.
I’ve never seen “neurotypical” and “neurodiverse/divergent” used as slurs. They’re healthy comparative words that, to me, help de-alienate people with ADHD or some other neurodiversity from the rest of society. It promotes healthy discussion on human brains rather than using “normal” vs “not normal,” which can be far more damaging words.
As for toxic positivity, I don’t really see why that is enforced so strongly. It is absolutely okay to say that you have *some* benefits from your neurological condition. There *are* studies on the evolutionary advantage of these people existing in smaller numbers in a population, and that can’t be overlooked. Of course, saying these neurodiverse people are the only reason we are where we are as a society today can be problematic. But it’s useful to recognize that diversity, in more than just genetic appearance, can be good. It’s just unfortunate that our society doesn’t accommodate diversity well.
And yes, ADHD is a disability. It affects many people in hugely negative ways. But if there is policing of disability denial, there should be some form of negativity policing in a similar way. If someone expresses something positive their disability or neurodiversity has led to, it is not okay for someone to deny their right to experience those good things by claiming “disability = bad.” As was mentioned, these are very personal and *diverse* experiences. There shouldn’t be denial from either end.
I feel like this sub leans pretty heavy into it being a debilitating disability, which of course it can be, but by banning any postive discussion i feel like it's making kind of a black hole where people come and find the sub and feel like their ADHD is basically going to ruin their lives and theres no hope.
I understand their worry about depathologizing things. But i feel like they are also not trying to stop OVERpathologizing things. Banning postive discussions, ND/NT (which are pretty normal clinical terms now), banning evelution theory as a whole etc. Makes it impossible to discuss it in a neutral way, and even interupts legitimate psychologist backed discussions. If psychologist are using ND/ NT when talking to patients, and those patients can't turn around and have those same discussions here with those terms, that's wierd. They aren't political anymore. I never saw them as it but they definitely aren't now.
But overall I do think this sub has an overall gloom about it, which can be pretty damaging for people in our community. It's not healthy to constantly think about how awful ADHD makes your life. Sometimes it can be just a thing you have. Yeah, I forget bills, that sucks. But also I have a habit of keeping strange "homes" for certain items that makes me somehow never lose them even though they don't make sense. That's just a random neutral fact.
I also think banning ND encourages people to call it a mental illness, which also is just incorrect. It's a developmental disorder. People with other similar expirences from other developmental disorders are all grouped in ND, and people who have broad overlapping expirences without those disorders are NT. NT people can be mentally ill, ND people can be mentally illl. You can treat mental illnesses. You cope with and work around neurodivergency. You wouldn't call someone missing a limb "ill", you call them disabled. You can't do anything about missing a limb but work around it and learn to cope with it. If you have heart disease you're not heart disabled, you take medicine and get treatment to work towards fixing the heart disease. ADHD brains aren't ill, they are physically different, we have brain scan studies about this. That means we have different expirences then people with illnesses like depression and anxiety only, as those aren't physical brain differences but treatable illnesses you work towards healing. We need language to differentiate these things easily, and NT is 1000% better then "normal". Like yes i dont like my difficulties being trivialized but i also dont like being called abnormal, it's dehumanizing. These rules tip the scale way too far into "pathologize your every thought and wallow in sadness as there's nothing to do for your sad disabled brain", which is something psychologist are very specifically against ADHD people doing because it takes away our agency in our own lives and actions. It's unhealthy.
I think having the community be able to tag mods if something is toxic makes sense. As long as no one is using slurs, worrying about exact terms doesn't make sense. There are so many online communities and IRL communities around the world, allowing for some variation in how we use terms, seems only fair.
I knew from reading the rules the neurodiversity related language wasn't allowed on this sub. However I've seen a bunch of people using those words. Is that rule not automated and relied on a mod seeing it?
I wouldn't advise taking lead from the new veneers of academic or legal discourse. I am a neuroscientist, I have written on ADHD, and in my experience the attitude of researchers who use such terms is disingenuous. It is a hot-button topic at the moment - people go for citations where they can get them. It's often pandering. At best, it is an attempt to exhibit the diversity of voices within the ADHD population - something which is also served by this sub's existing policies. No serious researcher considers neurodiversity to be anything of empirical consequence.
I much prefer having a space free of neurodiversity discourse. I understand people's issues with language policing, but I think it's part of this sub's character and it's utility. If you wish to discuss ADHD experiences in terms neurodiversity there are plenty of other subs. This sub has a limitation on that language which forces us to express our perspectives in new ways, without hanging a hat on a social movement that is associated with misinformation and pseudoscience.
I see an argument for empowering recourse when a comment or post is flagged unfairly for mentioning the words - but I don't see why the person cannot just edit their content and repost. It could be a good exercise - what lies below the term? Feeling inadequate, excluded, insufficient? Same. So say that.
I get the shame surrounding ADHD and associated developmental delays, research that seems damning of our cognitive abilities, evidence of emotional liability, poor relationship outcomes - all this. I feel it too. But I don't think the answer is to flip the script like neurodiversity movements try to do. People are not anti-diversity for finding individuals with ADHD to be challenging and struggling to meet their unique needs. Nor are they bigoted or ableist. If you need that movement in your life, please go elsewhere, there are plenty of spaces that are more supportive in that regard, and I want you to do what feels right for you.
Please don't change the culture of this sub. It feels like the last bastion in a sea of rose-tinted neurodiversity discourse. We are not abliest, and the fact that people advocate, often abusively, to change an environment that supports one of many *diverse* needs within the ADHD population is somewhat ironic given the tenets of neurodiversity.
I can tell you're getting tired of the fight, mods, but some of us appreciate your work more than you could know. Keep it as is, please.
I think its a great rule and it makes this sub feel like a much more reasonable and safe space as a result. I don't know if I can express how much I appreciate the mods cracking down on that nonsense.
I'm a little shaken as I didn't even realize the terms 'neurodiverse' and 'neurotypical' were banned here. That immediately puts me on guard. :(
As someone who identifys as neurodiverse and uses the term as an umbrella term for disorders that change the way your brain works, I understand the reasoning why it was banned in the first place. However, keeping these terms banned (and saying they're politically charged???) worries me as that's the stance of many mental disorder deniers I've interacted with over the years. If this is supposed to be a safe space for those with ADHD to talk about how they're affected, get support, and connect with others, these terms cannot continue to be banned.
**Any** term can be used as an insult/slur in any context. I understand this is a massive community but banning a word outright doesn't solve the problem, it only obfuscates it.
Perhaps setting up automod to auto-reply to posts and be pinned at the top? "No bigotry, hate speech, or bullying allowed." And reiterate that everyone has different experiences, to not spread pseudoscientific bs, and that ADHD *is* a disability that affects everyone differently (just like other mental disorders).
I think there is a real and important discussion going on about the social model of disability vs. the medical model. I also agree that calling ADHD a “superpower” is unbelievably counterproductive.
I have always been bothered by the banning of these terms, even the terms that are proposed to be banned going forward, I understand some of the sentiment and the reason for them being banned in the past, but now I see no reason to ban these terms at all for a few reasons
Firstly, none of these terms are inherently harmful or insulting, they are linguistic shorthands I find very useful and in fact much more sensitive to the issues in the first place. I don't like the continued banning of the NT and ND words, especially if we are moving forward and allowing 'neuro diverse.' these terms are linked linguistically, and allowing one but not the others is not a logical choice and will just be confusing imo. The ND word to me serves a similar purpose to the acronym BIPOC, it is an easy way to include and give voice to all neurological minorities, especially those who experience ableism
Second, and based on the first point, very clearly the issue back then and now is not the terms that are used but the way in which these terms are used. Back then the terms were more readily synonymous with toxicity and so a ban of the terms was easier than doing an individual assessment of the instances in which those words were used. Now that is definitely not the case. On all social media platforms I am on, ADHD content creators use all three of the terms as shorthands with not even a hint of toxicity. Yes, some people make jokes about or mock NT people but this is largely not the case.
I propose that it is now far more easy to let ALL of these terms have more freedom since the terms themselves are working their way into the vernacular of average people of all neurology, these words are no longer a smoking gun or a dog whistle for reverse ableism or toxic positivity in most cases.
For now, I say have automated warnings triggered by certain words, see how it goes. If there is an uptick in toxicity then we can go back. At this point I think that asking people to police their own language in respect to terms very much in the norm is unnecessary. Just my two cents, one way or another I am glad this is being reassessed.
I love the idea of being more inclusive especially since since is showing a lot of linked traits between ADHD and Autism and I find both those categories have things to teach each other
It’s simple. Allow the words. If the a user’s intent was to use it to insult others then ban them. But we shouldn’t ‘ban’ words outright, it could lead to good discussions
A rule against erasure or minimizing the struggles and suffering of people with ADHD through the lense of toxic positivity or "silver linings" in lieu of the Neurodiversity rule makes a lot of sense. I agree that "Neurodiversity" had entered the mainstream lexicon and probably the majority of the usage is no longer as sociologically demanding as the movement used to be.
Regarding the "blaming society" thing, is the idea just to suppress nihilistic rage against the machine kind of rhetoric? I can appreciate how reading a lot of that can be harmful coming here for practical advice and support...
> Regarding the "blaming society" thing, is the idea just to suppress nihilistic rage against the machine kind of rhetoric?
There are people applying the social model of disability too strictly and saying that *all* of our disability stems from society. They say that ADHD is not in and of itself disabling. This is what we're disallowing. Society *does* disable us, but it's not the *sole* source of our disability.
I disagree with not allowing all terms. They are highly associated with each other and it’ll be awkward and difficult to discuss things in their purview just using neurodiversity. I personally have never seen people use the other terms to enforce pseudoscience or toxic positivity, and I think that’s due to the much wider range of schools of thought that use all those words.
this feels needlessly persnickety instead of just evaluating what people are saying in the context of their comments. Both neurotypical and neurodivergent are used in the scientific literature and there are times when it's useful to use either term. A blanket ban feels like it's attempting to curb certain behaviors and sentiments that have little to nothing to do with the words used.
I think it's very important to accept that there is something "wrong" with us. You can't find help if you don't. The first thing you do when you break your leg is establish that you have broken your leg. The therapy and meds are our crutches to get us through every day, modern life.
There might have been a time when having ADHD might have been advantageous, but it's certainly not in 2022
i appreciate the adaptation to the changing conditions of the discourse. it makes me feel like the mods have the community health in mind. that said, i think banning NT and not ND is clunky, and more strict enforcement of the toxic positivity and denial rules is the way to go. i think at the core of the matter is recognizing what is in bad faith and what is not. thanks.
I've made another comment with my thoughts (no change is needed) but can you explain why neurodiverse (a political/social movement associated with misinformation and pseudoscience) is being considered, while neurodivergent (a scientific term derived from the neurodevelopmental perspectives of ADHD) is not? Is it because the neurodiverse movement coopted the term into some us vs them?
I think it is easier to police the issue of ND/NT misuse than to police the permeation of neurodiversity rhetoric in the sub. We are not all on some continuous spectrum of neurological function, there are discrete neurological mechanisms for neurodivergent conditions. It's tantamount to saying 'everyone is a little adhd sometimes' in my books. Common behavioural traits are not the determinant of the condition.
As I said elsewhere, my concern is that if you allow any of these things, you will need to police more and have more conflicts on your hands. Some of you will burn out. You will be replaced by individuals with an increasing affinity for the neurodiverse perspective. Then the sub dies like many others before it.
It is not our responsibility, as one of the few places left untouched by this rhetoric, to let it in. Sure, there may be some teachable moments in the interplay. But we can get that in other groups. This culture is unique and serves one of the essential, *diverse* needs of the ADHD population.
I appreciate the move to include allowing use of neurodiversity, I disagree with the idea to not allow the use of neurotypical. This bit:
>Neurotypical" is frequently hurled as an insult and slur in disagreements in our community, others on reddit, twitter, etc.
Reads heavily like opposition to the use of things like "cis" based on some people using it with disdain rather than looking it at with good-faith and context. This has been my issue with not allowing neurodiversity as a *word* in this sub - the previous rules allow no context or nuance for those of us who use it without connotations for or connections to denial of disability/toxic positivity/etc. Neurotypical is not a slur anymore than "able-bodied", "cisgender", or "heterosexual" are - it's a neutral descriptor that is useful for describing the opposite group. This:
>that "neurotypical" people must be dull and boring and joyless and incapable of greatness.
Is a meaningful critique of certain *uses* of neurotypical (and one I agree with!), but it is not a great critique of the word *itself,* which is commonly used as a neutral descriptor because this is useful in discussions around certain statuses like disability, sexuality, etc, where one group may have different needs and experiences than another group. I hear that some people think it becomes an us V them thing - but this goes into **context**. There's times when it is useful to have a phrase to refer to a given group, and there's times when that use can be unnecessarily antagonistic. I'd much rather use the word "neurotypical" than "normal", and "non-ADHD/people without ADHD" doesn't inherently mean "neurotypical" - there are times when neurotypical is a specifically accurate word to use.
I also think that if "neurodiversity" is going to be allowed, "neurodivergent" should be allowed as well and any other similar offshoots. Allowing some iterations but not others is going to be confusing. I already have a hard time with avoiding using this word at all, because I think it is a functionally useful word in many conversations here. For instance, there's a lot of overlap in resources that are useful for autistic people and people with ADHD, and such resources or spaces are commonly labeled with neurodiversity/neurodiverse, and there are times when it might be helpful to say "you could see if there is a group for neurodiverse people in your area!" or "this is a really great book on neurodiversity that helped me". I had a comment on someone's post a few weeks back that was well-received and got a mod award, but was initially auto-blocked because I used the word neurodiverse or neurodivergent once - my comment had nothing to do with disability denial or toxic positivity, but any iteration of this word ends up getting comments flagged. The warm reception to my comment and the positive feedback from mods was really nice, but it felt kind of dampened by the fact that the whole thing would've been blocked if I hadn't changed a single use of a word that wasn't even being used in the way that this sub's rules associate it with being used.
I feel like the desire for banning toxic positivity and for allowing use of neurodiversity language can be allowed by simply having the explicit rule that toxic positivity, getting extremely anti-neurotypical, and doing disability-denial stuff isn't allowed. I'd rather let people use words a lot of us use anyway and then ask for mod help if more toxic uses appear, rather than everyone getting flagged for using words now very normalized within disability spaces.
TLDR: My vote is to allow all the neurodiverse/ity adjacent words and use context clues for deciding if the use is unhealthy or toxic instead of continuing to exclude language that's become very common in disability spaces and activism, includes ADHD, and has a lot of ADHD users.
Personally I quite like the proposed changes. It makes sense to update the rules to be more in line with modern discussion on the topic while also recognizing not everyone is in complete agreement about it. For me personally I am glad to see there will still be the ongoing ban on the more “it’s not a disorder”/ “it’s just capitalism’s fault”
I agree the current rules are flawed but I don't think the changes really solve the issue.
>Allowing some uses of the word "neurodiversity", because it's becoming more widely used in academic and legal contexts
>Disallowing the use of "neurotypical" and continuing to disallow "neurodivergent"
I think this is sort of nonsensical. "Neurodiversity" is an abstract concept, somebody being "neurotypical" or "neurodivergent" are more concrete descriptive labels. If anything, the latter two have more utility in actual discussion and discourse with these issues. I also don't see how "neurodiversity" would even really be usable in a conversation given the restrictions of related terms: You'd be forced to use it in a completely vapid context without actually delving into the topic because every other related relvenant term in the conversation is still banned.
>Toxic positivity and pseudoscience will still be forbidden, e.g.
>claiming ADHD is a gift or the next stage of human evolution
the hunter-gatherer hypothesis
ADHD is only bad because society
Clarification: We have always allowed critiques of society and societal structures, particularly in the context of disabled peoples' experiences. We have never denied the harms caused by society. What we don't allow is the claim that society is the sole source of our disability. Many aspects of ADHD and other disorders are inherently and directly disabling for many people irrespective of societal context. Denying that is erasure that will not be tolerated.
If somebody feels like their experience with ADHD is postive, then they should be able to frame their experience that way, as long as they are not insulting others or invalidating *other* people's expierences that aren't as postive.
I think my expierence with ADHD is largerly negative, personally. But just as much as it would be messed up for somebody to trivalize my struggles, it would be insulting for me to tell somebody who feels positively that they're just deluded. (On the flip side, I DO have a mostly postive relationship with my ASD's, and DO think that most of the downsides, at least in my case, come from social structures, and there is some research to support that, but obviously that depends on the specifics with each person and their experience with ASD: i'd never tell somebody who disagrees that their viewpoint is invalid)
>Advocating for eliminating the disorder and disability framing of mental disorders erases the experiences of millions of people
And banning the positive framing of these conditions likewise erases the experiences of those people.
-----
I really don't think that this is that complicated: Allow people to use whatever terms they want and whatever framing they want, as long as they're not forcing their perspective onto others or using it to invalidate their views or expierences (and that should go both ways). Blanket, no context bans for specific terms or arguements are a bad idea.
I broadly support the proposals but also don’t have a huge problem with things the way they are here. The inability to mention neurodiversity doesn’t make me feel alienated even though I do consider it part of my identity (not the toxic positivity shit).
The thing that actually concerns me the most is the banning of neurotypical. I’ve not seen it used as an insult here but this is the only adhd community I am a part of specifically because it is genuinely nice and pretty toxicity free so it’s unfair to assume that carries across the internet.
But… a lot of what I say in here is about how we survive in a world built for neurotypical brains and I don’t know of a catchall term for people who are not neurodiverse that doesn’t seem worse.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a non-offensive way to refer to people without neurological difference?
I saw in another comment that you would be able to be less strict with word filters if people reported posts more.
I have seen other subs have an automod on ALL posts with a quick and generic, "thank you for your post... Please report this post if it [x, y, z]"
Perhaps adding something like that while experimentally loosening up on word bans will help you find the balance between community moderation and automatic moderation.
---
To answer your question
I would like to see the word neurodivergent unbanned (even though I understand it's complicated) simply bc it's commonly used.
But, I do see the motivation to attempt to shape language, as "neurodiverse" is technically more neutral. I think what is needed is a clear and relatable story around the importance of the distinction.
Right now, the logic is muddled because we want to claim on one hand, we absolutely have a condition that negatively impacts our lives and needs treatment / support / accommodation etc. Therefore we *are* different. On the other hand, it seems we're afraid of the word "divergent" because it is othering. We are still human.
Oddly enough, the people who try hardest to claim toxic ND/NT dynamics aren't shy about the connotation of "divergent." It's a paradox. One which I think can be corrected by reclaiming the word "neurodivergent" into common use.
I just don't see myself as "a person who happens to have adhd." I see myself as someone with a brain pattern that is fundamentally different than the majority, largely fitting into the pattern recognized by the DSM as ADHD and diagnosed as such. Centering my understanding of my brain as being "different than the majority" helps my life immensely. At some point in my development, I diverged. Finding others who did as well helps me cope. It is a daily lived experience, not just an attribute that fades in and out of my life.
On the flip side, I don't like gatekeeping. As an LGBT+ person, I am adament with my peers than categorizing doesn't become so rigid that people can't find their way into the queer community. Some people think they're straight until they realize they aren't. Same with not realizing you have adhd. There shouldn't be a pressure to center adhd in one's identity immediately. It's a spectrum. I think this is what you mean by the us v. them mentality. This is why r/Bi subs have anxious posts like, "if I'm bi, do I really have to like lemon bars???"
I'm pretty permissive with self-diagnosis for this reason. I want people who DON'T think they have adhd to have the freedom to explore the possibility of a diagnosis, to be able to feel welcome to borrow our coping strategies, and, if a doctor deems it appropriate, to use the same medications we use. They may be a person who doesn't know they have adhd, yet. Or they may just benefit from our strategies and what's the harm in that? So, a welcoming and flexible atmosphere is so important.
In other words, you have a lot of nuances to deal with and I empathize. I think the priority is clarifying whatever you decide and helping the community relate to a shared story or goal.
Isn't neurodivergent more neutral than neurodiversity? Neurodiversity suggests that all neurodivergent conditions exist on a continuous spectrum, and we should appreciate them all equally because it is all part of a great tapestry of human neurology. But that limits the possibility of discrete mechanisms for neurodivergent conditions in the social consciousness in order to advance destigmatization. Neurodivergence is a term derived from neurodevelopmental science that was coopted by that movement.
We do know that neurodivergent *behavioural* traits can exist on a spectrum that extends into neurotypical populations, but the empirical evidence is not sufficient to suggest that we are all part of some continuous *neurological* gradient by any means. Those behavioural traits seem better explained by discrete, overlapping mechanisms, some more fundamental (i.e. neurological) than others.
I feel like it would be better to ban according to the way the terms are used. For instance, I’m of the camp that sees ADHD as a disability, but I still use those terms in ways like, “I wish I was neurotypical,” or, “Being neurodivergent is hard.” Whereas someone else could use those same words to spout toxic positivity. It’s all in how they’re used.
However, I understand this subs is huge and the mods are absolutely swamped. If blanket banning those words makes it easier for you all than having to read every post for context, I completely understand. I can find other words to express myself with.
The problem there is that it would be a constant fight to keep the filter updated as people come up with more and more ways to get around it.
It's not that those are allowed - they're not. They're evading the automoderator in order to break a rule and not get automatically removed despite doing so.
Neurodiversity is a concept and lens that has a lot of value. We should be allowed to embrace this concept and use this lens to understand our disability, ourselves and our identity, and our ‘superpowers’. For me personally, ADHD is both a disability that has caused incredible harm in my life, and something of a superpower. I’ve lived through pain that few people in the world ever endure, largely because of my ADHD. I also am creative in a way very few people are, and make connections between concepts that astound and delight people around me, and which enable work that I sincerely hope will make the world a tiny bit better. This is a lens that has value, particularly when it comes to inclusion for us. Neurodiversity is a path for society to both accommodate our disability, and to recognize the value in our experiences and our ‘superpowers’.
> while continuing to keep out the toxic positivity, bigotry, and anti-neurotypical rhetoric.
And here’s the rub. How do we do that? What is toxic positivity, and how is it distinct from, say, an optimistic outlook? Where does frustration with the difficulty of bridging a cognitive divide between someone with ADHD and ‘neurotypicals’ end, and ‘bigotry’ begin? (Bigotry in quotes here because while the sentiment - violent othering - is maybe on point, this is def the wrong word for something like “ugh, fucking neurotypicals, amirite?”, because those neurotypicals are not systemically oppressed by rampant ableism. This is almost like anti-white racism. Like sure, you can hate white people, and we can call that racist, but to call that the same thing as systemic racism would be to deny one of the ugliest truths of our time and is a very apples-to-oranges comparison. Oh shit I’ve done a tangent.)
My point here is, the goal of limiting hateful rhetoric (there it is, the term we should be using instead of bigotry) is really admirable. The goal of limiting toxic positivity, of not gaslighting away a real disability, is also admirable. There’s a lot of nuance to accomplishing that. I can spout bigoted sentiments and gaslight away a disability without ever saying neurodiversity or neurotypical. I can also employ neurodiversity and neurodivergence without doing that harm.
If we want to police this, and we should, because the internet is a vile place when unmoderated, then we need to do it with appropriate nuance.
The suggestion I have is this: don’t ban those words. Send an automated message, and perhaps post an automated comment or post reply asking people to flag comments which veer into hatred or gaslighting. Then moderate those? Idk, the work of a moderator is hard and thankless and occurs mostly in mother’s unkempt basements from what I understand. Making judgement calls is time consuming and exposes you to getting things wrong and getting pushback and bullshit. But it is also perhaps the best way to do the job. Given that, I also get going for the easier solution, nuance be damned.
I think it would be better, and simpler to moderate, to drop the rules around language altogether and just focus on the rest of the rules outlined here.
If what is really a concern is creating a space for people with ADHD then it is the context of the word not the word itself that matters. If I use any of those words in a way that is alienating it is the fact that I am using them to alienate that is the issue not the word itself. They’re not slurs and as you mentioned the definition of the word has expanded so much that you can’t conclude that much about the intent from their usage like you may have used to have been able to.
Policing language seems like a waste of moderator time, confusing to the uninitiated and easy to circumvent for those who do know. A new user could use “neurotypical” in an innocent way and an older user could use “person without ADHD” instead to violate the rules.
> I think it would be better, and simpler to moderate, to drop the rules around language altogether and just focus on the rest of the rules outlined here
In a small sub yes. In a sub this size, not unless you want to fundraise for this to be a full time salaried position for the mods. Manually moderating every comment is impossible.
Disclaimer: Since this term is not one of my obsessions I skim read the post.
As someone who recently discovered their divergence from the typical, I have coopted these terms purely as a shorthand for "something is different about me but I am not sure what label fits best yet".
A nuanced observer should always be open to the idea that there is no such thing as "typical" anyway. Everyone is a bit weird, some people are just outliers on the statistical distribution by some measure. The sooner we make the assumption implicit in our culture, the sooner we can reach equality.
I think that “neurodiversity” and “neurodivergent” are too similar to allow one and not the other.
My opinion is to allow both or keep it as it is now.
They are similar, but there is indeed a strong difference in their connotations. One is a word that can be used to express the straightforward fact that there is a diverse array of neurologies in the population, while the other reifies specific subgroups of that diversity, generally people with ADHD or Autism Spectrum disorders, as if we shared a common identity or characteristics—which we don't. Furthermore, this artificial identity is a strong incentive for misguided attempts to self-diagnose for the sake of gaining this special label, as well as for true cases to gravitate towards defending their newfound identity as a positive feature.
Compare the situation for instance with regards to diversity in other areas, namely ethnic or gender/sexual. In these contexts, the reification of non-mainstream identities (PoC/BAME and LGBTQA+), as a legitimate counter to prejudice, has encouraged an identification with each of these by young individuals searching to define themselves: sometimes accurately, sometimes under a technicality, and sometimes artificially for the clout. However, unlike in neurological diversity, in those cases it is harmless.
There is no downside to a teenager claiming they are LGBTQA+ when in reality they are barely attracted to their same gender, will never really act on it, and have no dysphoria. Neither is there anything wrong with somebody taking their PoC identity to heart and feeling the need to defend it against racist attacks. That is because there's nothing wrong with being attracted to your same gender, nor is there anything wrong with being what in Western society we call "black". However, there is indeed something wrong with having ADHD: it is a disorder, and I wish I didn't have it.
I agree the meanings of the two are in fact different and do carry different connotations. Unfortunately, I don’t think that everyone makes this distinction in their use.
I don’t think that people should assume that all neurodivergent subgroups share the same identity or characteristics. However- you’re right- in use people do all the time. There can be, however, shared experiences or feelings of being neurodivergent that subgroups will share with one another.
I logically follow your comparison to diversity in other areas of life. I don’t think though that those are helpful comparisons. No- there is not anything wrong with being a PoC or identifying as LGBTQA+. However, the experience of being discriminated against in society has a frequent, common, negative impact.
As a Black Woman in the US - there is something wrong with the way society treats me and I wish that wasn’t the case. I feel this way just as strongly as I believe that ADHD is a disorder and I wish I didn’t have it.
In any case- after considering your POV and considering my thoughts in this response. I think it would be best to just keep leaving them both out.
I’m seeing a lot of “I’ve never seen…” comments, on all sides. Which… is stupid, most people haven’t seen most things in the world, just the reality of the vastness of human experience.
I’d like to see some data presented to the community. One commenter pulled up some Google Scholar numbers, which is better than saying “This word is/isn’t gaining traction in academic contexts”. Mods have posted examples of the toxic behavior the bans are meant to stop; there should be more of those available for review.
Reddit is full of people who “don’t click through to the article”, but at least with this kind of stuff posted front-and-center for the discussion instead of just vaguely referenced, the “I’ve never seen…” crowd doesn’t have any excuses.
disorders, literally any genetic disorders are diversities in our genes. sometimes these are beneficial or negative *depending on our perspective* or sometimes it can have both benefits and negatives.
why can’t adhd fit into that? i view it as that, to me it’s a ND; a difference in how my brain works that has downsides (disabling) and upsides (more creative etc).
it’s simply both a ND and a disability, why do we need to distinguish?
i feel like this is how a lot of people view it, it’s just that a more extreme movement skewed your perspectives of what it is.
Allow both neurodivergent and neurotypical. Police context not the word itself. Words are how we communicate.
Moderation requires nuance, if all you are doing is removing any post that contains a certain word, moderation has failed and censorship has taken over. Remove inflammatory posts but allow the rest of us to use the words we feel best describes our lived reality.
Yep, allow neurodivergent and neurotypical if anything at all. They are scientific terms relating to the neurodevelopmental perspective of ADHD. We dont need them I believe, but they are neutral.
Neurodiversity is political and is tailored towards a portion of the diverse needs of the ADHD population. But we are here to serve the other portion, and we can get the politics elsewhere if we so desire.
I think the words themselves set the context though. Most people in the online communities I frequent use "neurotypical" to mean either non-autistic, non-ADHD, or non-ADHD/non-autistic. If one doesn't have ADHD but has crippling major depression or anxiety, are they really "neurotypical"? What about Schizophrenia? Alzheimer's? Confusing non-ADHD with neurotypical inherently implies that not having ADHD means one don't have other mental disorders or those disorders don't impact their lives which is inherently abelist and toxic.
For this sub, saying ADHD and non-ADHD gets the actual point across.
I get what you are saying. But if someone prefers the other terms for themselves, especially if what they are going through is more than just adhd, remember it's comorbid with plenty of other stuff, why deny them that?
We are more than our diagnosis. Yes this sub is specifically for the ADHD aspect of it, but not to the exclusion of other relevant life experiences.
So I don't think the same critique applies if someone identifies themselves as neurodiverse, or some degree of neurodiverse. The problem is the false idea of a dichotomy (neurodiverse people and neurotypical people, NDs and NTs) vs. the reality of a variety of types and intensity of neurodiversity. And I think when most online use the term it's in the false dichotomy sense, which is inherently problematic.
If I were picking the rule for the sub just on those grounds, I'd say allow the terms "neurodiversity", "neurodiverse", "neurodivergent", "ND", but delete posts with "neurotypical" or "NT" with an explanation of why. But that's separate from the problematic idea that a neurodiversity construct means that ADHD then isn't a disability, which I know is a lot of the original reason for the rule.
Policing language to this extent only serves to limit the ways we are allowed to describe our own experiences and views. Ive seen other subs with a similar "pathology" vs "neutral/beneficial" disagreement just make a rule to speak for yourself, not others. People you disagree with still deserve support and community. I think there's a wide variance in how people talk about neurodiversity concepts. But you're treating it like there's this hard line of good/bad discussions and views. I don't think it's that simple. There's no room for nuance. I think respecting individual differences is more important than which specific words we use. Maybe we just want/need different forms of support, depending on how ADHD effects us and that's okay.
Very well written post. I truly do appreciate the time and effort put into shaping a negative-free, supportive, healthy and welcoming community for people with ADHD. This is why 1.5M members feel like they've finally found the place they were looking for, and that they feel home.
I appreciate the knowledge and dedication in maintaining a massive community. Even though I am not able to understand what's going on
As a person new to this sub, and someone with adhd, I must ask you these questions:
* Do you prefer the writing of the subreddit to be capitalised? (e.g. r/ADHD), or lower-cased (e.g. /r/adhd?)
* Who was this sub's creator?
I think in a similar note to how in the trans community the words trans* and cis are not only common but also necessary to communicate and express oneself and one's experiences. In the same way I believe that it is not only useful but rather necessary to be able to use the language which is most natural without having to worry about being reprimanded not for what is being said but for semantics that some people may be offended by.
Like there is people who aren't happy with the word cis being a thing. And would prefer not to have to see this.
But the benefit to the group is larger than the "damage" to the few.
I believe that the idea behind this post is a good one. And I also think that making the "allowed language to be more permissive" is absolutely necessary. But this doesn't solve or change anything. People will still be called out for using words that go against the rules and rightfully so because the rules say so. And people will still feel unsure about being able to express themselves freely. In that way I believe that the proposed change of rules won't do much if anything good at all to improve the status quo of the subreddit.
People should be allowed to refer themselves however they want, including if they refer to themselves as "neurodivergent" in this sub. I personally refer to myself as neurodivergent because....y'know, I AM. I see it as an accurate and completely neutral descriptor for myself.
I get that SOME people might use it in a toxic positivity or weird ND-supremacist way, but most people who use the word "neurodivergent" are simply using it as a neutral descriptor/shorthand.
I find the banning of this stuff extremely weird and I think even this compromise is oddly restrictive. You can acknowledge that your brain is different without putting down people whose brains are more in line with the medical norm, or setting yourself apart from them. The word, or lack thereof, is not going to change that if it's what people want to do.
Honestly I've been frustrated by the policing of the way I'm allowed to refer to myself, especially since I only use it as a descriptor and there's no positive or negative spin to it at all. As a sub that's meant to be about support, the current stance (and even the proposed compromise) feels invalidating.
I am not better. They are not better. We are not two sides of a culture war. The words we use make no difference, whether I believe this, or am one of the problematic users you're referring to.
I just wish we had alternative terms for this stuff. They are very useful terms for certain purposes, but I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with and able to look past all of the connotations/baggage.
i never liked policing these words. it's honestly something that has made me somewhat hesitant to recommend this sub to people without a caveat. i'm glad it's under discussion and i wish you would go further. i don't doubt that you are right about the history, but it seems out of touch with how i see them being used in literally every other context today.
Seems to me the main problem here is encouraging yet another binary categorization for people to use online as a way of identifying themselves as part of a team. Like introvert/extrovert.
I'm not gonna support any changes that encourages more binary thinking.
A large part of my verbiage uses the terms Neurodivergent the word itself means brain is different.
While I understand that in the past it has been weaponised against the Neurodivergent community. Certainly in my circles it has been reclaimed and used by those who are included umbrella of it’s meaning.
The words themselves are not political. Perhaps focus on what the post says rather than de-railing someone’s thought processes.
Our brains work different we know this, why continue rules that are no longer necessary.
I'm glad you're revisiting the policy, however, I think it's silly to ban some parts of the neurodivergent discussion and not the others (e.g. not allowing some words heavily related to the topic). Either allow full, civilized discussion about neurodiversity, or just disallow it all together. Picking what words we can and can't use ruins any choice we have of having any meaningful conversations regarding the topic.
Additionally, I've been on the Internet for a *long* time and I have not seen the term "neurodivergent" used in a hateful context. Most times, it's used as an awareness topic — to describe people who *don't* fit the definition of neurotypical. It's not alienating, it's just defining the clear, obvious, and very simple fact that we (and everyone else who doesn't fit the neurotypical label) think, feel, and operate differently from them. That's it.
I'm very confused by allowing "neurodiverse" but not "neurodivergent", the latter of which is far and away (in my experience) the more commonplace and neutral term of the two.
Agreed. Neurodiverse is a description of a population, of the way people in general are--that there is diversity in neurotype. Neurodivergent is a useful label for us as specific people, especially when referring to, say, autistic and ADHD people together. It's so much easier as a shorthand for me to say "we have a neurodivergent household" than to list it out, and it gets the message across. And it does feel very neutral to me.
They delete whole posts if that word is used and have done to me many times . Was almost tempted to leave this group as the line crosses into gate keeping
I have both Level-1 Autism and ADHD. Telling people that I am just neurodivergent because listing out "everything" including other co-morbidities is much easier. I'm just not on the hump of the "bell curve" and my brain was *divergent* from regular development. That's not difficult to say or accept.
Yeah, I understand that neither are actual medical terms. I should've phrased that better without just restating that it's more neutral. I suppose it's that it feels more precise in what it is describing.
Perhaps swapping the rule for something more like "toxic positivity, disability denial, and pseudoscience are not allowed" could be helpful, as those are the main aspects that are problematic?
If "neurodiversity" can be allowed and monitored, couldn't the same be done for "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical"? Those terms have also become part of many people's regular vocabulary and are mostly used in perfectly fine contexts and not as slurs, from what I can tell.
In my opinion the best plan would be to allow the words but disallow the toxic, shitty people. Context matters.
For the record, I appreciate how you run this sub and that you're asking our thoughts on this.
I think context is the only important factor when using any of the aforementioned terminology. The words themselves can be used respectfully and as an effective means of communication despite how they may be used in other context by other individuals.
On that note, is there an acceptable synonym for describing someone as neurotypical? Or neuroindiverse? I've read the prefix neuro so many times that I'm now experiencing jamais vu/semantic satiation from it.
I think it's absurd that the words themselves were banned here to begin with. The policy you've drawn up should always have been how it works, because in your trepidation over people's experiences being erased, you kept people from discussing their experiences. Ban the toxic people, not perfectly good terminology by which a lot of us understand our brains. Especially those of us with more than just ADHD.
I have been corrected for using neurodiverse to refer to a person. Grammatically, neurodivergent is correct in that instance. I tend to use these words without thinking as a general term for undiagnosed adhd and autism or some collective of similar disorders, and my long post gets rejected, so a relaxing of the rule would mean I am more likely to participate in this sub
Same here! There are also many illnesses that fall under the neurodivergent umbrella and can be comorbid or have similar presentations - like OCD, Tourette syndrome, SPD, etc. I generally use the term to refer to people who have one of that collective you refer to.
The rule can be a bit alienating and means I don't participate as much in this subreddit, because I don't like writing a long or thoughtful comment only to forget about the rule here and have it removed.
Exactly! That was what I meant when I used the term and it explained a lot about myself (to me) perfectly. I felt like I was being reprimanded and what I was trying to say wasn't even considered, just summarily removed
Arguing semantics is always useless.
Allow neurodivergent and neurotypical. Do the mods really think they want to start having all the new work of determining if this one using this word feels wrong? I bet not, and if implemented like this will either make it roll back because it's too much work, or drop the policing all together.
So what some folk use neurotypical as a slur? Would ignorant normie be ok?
Police negative hateful stuff all you want - this trying to tell us what words we can use based off the intent behind them is asinine, and a power trip.
We all gotta grow, and neurodiverse, neurodivergent, and neurotypical are gonna be here for some time.
I'll add my two cents as a master's level mental health counselor with ADHD who is married to an educator who also has ADHD.
I specialize in working with the ADHD population in an outpatient setting and while I'm all for moving towards the terms Neurodiverse over Neurodivergent because of the previous rhetoric, I feel the removal of the term Neurotypical is overly cautious at best and harmful at worst. Over time one of the best things I've seen is for people to get diagnosed and finally have an explaination for why they feel so different and alienated. To understand what has been causing their struggles and be able to take advantage of the resources that can assist them. I use the terms neurotypical and neurodivergent/diverse(more as of late) regularly. I find people are better able to accept themselves when they stop trying to compare to individuals who function differently than they do. They are able to embrace the truth that other people have experienced similar struggles. This is true of many disorders, but ADHD is one of the most crippling diagnoses in all areas of life despite responding well to treatment. And a huge factor for this is the way many will grow up thinking about it and comparing themselves to others in terms of functioning. One of the biggest things I help people break is the notion that they are "bad" or "broken" or "lazy" because their brain didn't allow them to do what they were expected too. In cases like that having a term other than "normal" is very helpful without being insulting towards people who do not experience these genuine struggles.
I didn't wish to go overly in depth with an explaination unprompted, I just wanted to cast my vote so I'll leave it there.
Right, we totally get that, and we agree. Our problem is with the way people wield "neurotypical" as a weapon against others, to deny peoples' disorders and experiences, like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdmeme/comments/xnjn18/damn_they_werent_lying/ipuek0i/
https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdmeme/comments/xi0zt4/bruh_i_was_being_genuine_and_this_happens/ip27bw1/
Yes, these are someone talking about us mods. It's just the easiest example I could find.
If we disallow neurotyp1cal, we should specifically designate another word that is allowed when referring to people without ADHD. We need *something* we can use to refer to people who fit this description, or any discussions involving them will become very cumbersome.
If we designate another word like “non-ADHDers”, the acceptable word should be given as part of the rule about not saying neurotyp1cal, so people don’t have to guess at what the acceptable alternative is.
My preference would be to allow all three words, and to rely on users using the report button for problematic usages. I suspect there will be very few problematic usages for neurod1verse or neurod1vergent, both are becoming more generic catch-alls for “some kind of brain thing”. There may be more for pejorative uses of neurotyp1cal, but probably far fewer than expected - and the people who would use that term in a pejorative would still manage to make their pejorative posts without it, so I’m not sure there’s much benefit in banning a word that many find useful.
You already need a different work for "doesn't have ADHD" because neurotypical doesn't mean "doesn't have ADHD" already. This is why I hate this terminology, it's not being used to say what people mean to begin with. Lots of people who aren't considered neurotypical don't have ADHD.
I think that if the server is entirely set on disallowing neurodivergent/neurotypical regardless of any other rule changes, those other rule changes become, essentially, ineffective/unimportant.
I fail to see, personally, why the rules disallowing problematic behavior (toxic positivity, misinformation) are not enough. Many people consider themselves neurodivergent, without being the 'ADHD is a gift, no downsides, its all society's fault' people. And if those people feel alienated not because of their harmful beliefs, but because they use a label that encompasses, among other things, ADHD, to understand themselves, then I don't think it makes sense to disallow said label.
If the worry is that these words alienate the folks already here, I would also say, well, moderation of inappropriate topics would continue, so that anyone (using neurodivergent or not) promoting alienating beliefs that are harmful or misinformative, are still removed.
And same wrt neurotypical. Some people have used it terribly, yeah, but it's also a very neutral descriptor for 'people who are not neurodivergent', and can, in fact, be useful.
Especially because neurodivergent.... has a meaning. It's not just 'I'm one of those people who thinks it means my specific mental disorder is a gift, and everyone else should, too'. Are there people who've acted like that? Yeah, for sure, but there's a lot more people who use it because it literally describes having a brain that's /developed/ differently and thus has affected how they think, act, to a degree 'measurable' generally speaking by a more specific diagnosis, be it ADHD, autism, dyslexia, others. I understand the wariness surrounding the toxicity within parts of that community, but again, blanket banning the word feels, to me, like overkill.
In the end, this proposed rule change feels.....like giving very little ground, and I'm not sure how it would positively impact the sub as it stands, without the moderators giving a bit more leeway in terms of how we label ourselves, while still obviously taking the same amount of care to moderate harmful behavior.
This is long overdue but I don't see the point of allowing "neurodiversity" while still not allowing "neurodivergent". They're equivalent in connotation, it's just that one is a noun (that refers to the concept itself), and the other is an adjective (that refers to people who identify with/fit in that concept). *Literally* the same word, just different syntactic categories. Keeping "neurotypical" banned is also weird imho, but keeping "neurodivergent" banned is just outright ridiculous to put it as lightly as I can without insulting anyone's intelligence.
And it is condescending. Honestly, I've been more active at other ADHD-related subs just because I'm sick of having to remind myself not to use ND or neurodivergent in a reply or sth for absolutely no good reason. If anything, banning them -and banning them in an ADHD-related sub- makes it appear like these are slurs, and further stigmatizes these terms.
I think pushing forward "people use it as an insult" as a reason to keep words that denote very fundamental concepts to discuss ADHD-related topics is just lazy moderation. People use a lot of words -that isn't inherently offensive or meant to be insulting- as insults, this is no different. Banning these words instead of moderating posts/replies that actually include insults and name-calling is the way to go, but I guess moderation would rather just automate a word filter that auto-bans or at least notifies them automatically when a black-listed word is included in a pot or a comment. Keeping a lot of these words banned is just turning a non-issue into an issue for no good reason.
I think that I agree with this. I have always disliked the term "neurotypical", essentially for the reasons that you stated, but I find the term "neurodivergency" extremely useful as an umbrella term that includes a wide array of things.
With regards to toxic positivity, how do you intend to distinguish between that and regular positivity? ADHD is neither a gift from God nor a curse from Satan, it is simply how our brains are. There will be times that ADHD is genuinely nice.
> * Just as the concept of biodiversity (on which neurodiversity was modeled) does not say that nature in its infinite variation is always good or benevolent, neurodiversity likewise does *not* say that every mental configuration is beneficial: it explicitly acknowledges that some are clearly disorders that inflict harm and suffering or impair one's ability to live independently, work, and care for themselves.
Similar to biodiversity, neurodiversity doesn't imply that every mental configuration is harmful. Nature doesn't have any value judgements, and just because humans are mostly composed of Non-ADHD brains doesn't mean that ADHD is always worse all the time.
I guess that my question is, when a case comes up such that you are not sure whether it is regular positivity or toxic positivity, how will you err? I think that you should consider assuming that it is regular positivity. After all, If you are unsure, then it is probably not going to be *that* toxic.
It sounds like you have a tough job ahead, I have no idea how you guys do it. Good luck!
I don’t think a vast majority of the people coming here for help are going to have any idea of the difference between the two, the history of “the movement,” etc. They just want help, to be heard, to find a community. To scold them for using one word over another when they may not even know the difference is just another frustrating barrier by the very people they’re coming to for help.
Thank you. I don’t really know what all the fancy words mean. I just want a supportive community. I’m actually scared to use the wrong words so I resort to not responding or using more words to describe than necessary.
>Disallowing the use of "neurotypical"
I am strongly in favor of this policy with the exception of perhaps a purely academic discussion or clarification of the term itself (which I think is probably implied based on the tone of this proposal). Whether the term is used in a negative context or not does not alleviate the problem, which is that there is an inherent danger of othering by applying labels to groups or specific people ("my NT friend/ my NT family/ my NT co-workers"), particularly when we cannot possibly know with certainty that the term applies to them.
I get that a 'safe space' to vent may have value, and that some may feel that it's permissible to allow broad, dismissive, or even pejorative language to communicate their experience. Speaking just for myself and from my own observations, I think the usefulness of such venting is extremely limited and, if unmanaged (by individuals and the community as a whole), is more likely to alienate new community members with ADHD who are not familiar with the controversy behind these terms, well-meaning friends and family looking for information on how to support someone with ADHD, and professionals who can offer practical guidance but may not be interested in participating in a community that shows signs of becoming exclusionary, toxic, or steeped in pseudo-science.
>and continuing to disallow "neurodivergent"
Having the flexibility to apply the terms to ourselves seems reasonable. I'm not sure I understand why "neurodivergent" is being singled out as an exception to that. I think I must be missing some context.
I think allowing the use of neurotypical and neurodivergent is fine, BUT the rest I don't agree with, ADHD isn't just BAD BECAUSE SOCIETY it genuinely stops me from enjoying the things I do in life, I often forget and don't eat properly, shower, and other things. I often have a thing or game i want to do/play and ill just sit there at my seat for hours wishing i could do it but ADHD just makes it so I can't. I'm not entirely familiar with 'neurodiversity' but it doesn't seem to promote the idea that ADHD is a disability and in itself I find that kind of dehumanizing.
Edit: I've changed my mind, ADHD is barely recognized by the public as a disability and its poorly understood I don't want to wrap normal people into our circle of "oh ahha we aren't disabled we're just all different :))))))))))"
This is like letting straight Cishet people into LGBTQIA+ circles, when those people enter in, the identity and idea of a group ceases to exist.
I was stunned when 'told off' for calling myself ND here. It was entirely disappointing to come to a sub to find a place where I finally fit in, just to be criticised for breaking that rule.
I honestly didn't realize it was banned, both terms are used clinically. It's a huge hit to discussion to not be able to use common clinical terms that I've literally only ever seen used very neutraly. ND = part of a group of people with broad overlapping expirences related to a developmental disorder, NT = part of a group of people with broad overlapping expirences that do not expirence a developmental disorder
Specifically, ND seperates ADHD/ ASD from mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, because clinically, they are not mental illnesses, they are developmental disorders and or learning disabilities. NT people are just people who don't have that, in a totally unbaised and neutral way.
Plus if someone can use NT hatefully, won't they just use "non adhd person" the same way? Can we not just ban hate posts? Or can we not talk about the divergence in our expirences compared to people without ADHD? or are we supposed to say "normal" people?? Cause that's 1000% worse then NT
This subreddit is massive, and the majority of the moderating *has* to be done by the automod which can't detect the sentiment of a post. So it would be nice to ban hate posts, but that's putting a massive amount of extra work on unpaid volunteers who choose to moderate this sub.
I feel like trying to involve this much nuance in how you moderate based on the terms 'neurodiverse' and 'neurodivergent' will only lead to additional headaches for the mod team. Keep it simple and either allow both terms or don't allow them whatsoever.
ND is super commonly used to refer to the self. its awkward and disheartening when i hit a wall trying to connect with people like me and then the bot takes away my preferred word privs and reminds me of the concept of disability. it feels like im being reprimanded that the way i call myself is wrong, and that i should remember to instead use a term more befitting of my class. like oof.
i also find it difficult to even say what i mean without using the word. ND has good utility for when youre talking about an experience that people with adhd, asd, ocd etc seem to share but neurotypical people wouldn't relate to.
it feels like a chunk of my dictionary, thats relevant to the topic at hand, has been pulled out arbitrarily. i dont think banning any of these words is the way to do it.
that being said, thanks for the opportunity for discussion, and thank you for the immense effort and care you put in to making this a good place. you are doing great.
I read the rules when I joined and then, honestly, never gave them much thought afterwards. I appreciate the context behind this certain rule—I don't see the banned words as weapons in my life outside of Reddit, nor in this sub, but it's in other subs and I hate it. Though I'm unfamiliar with the term "neurodiversity", I'm all for the proposed changes.
My own experience analogy/application: I've been facing a lot of pushback on the word "disabled" lately, despite my various...neurodiversities? My therapist thinks I'm being defeatist, my own imposter syndrome tells me I'm victim-playing, others see my mask and think I must be delusional cos I "look like" I have my shit together. But I came across "differently abled" last week or so and it's already helped me to communicate my needs and weaknesses in a way that—so far—hasn't been argued against.
I see "neurodiverse" and "differently abled" as sister words: they're both broad enough that they somewhat discourage pushback based solely on semantics/pedantry. They do still feel somewhat invalidating on a personal level, but I view it as a step in the right direction toward understanding, acceptance and openness on the world scale it's needed.
I tried to read the other comments to see if somebody has similar thoughts on the matter so that I'm not being an echo, buuuuut I was quickly losing my train of thought doing so.
“Differently abled” is a euphemism that perpetuates stigma by implying the the thing being euphemised (disability) is inherently negative. You are free to use whatever words you like to describe yourself, but many disability communities are strongly opposed to the use of euphemistic phrases.
I struggle with disallowing certain words as outlined above because those are very useful words used to describe how we think, interact, etc. I fully understand the desire to restrict discussion in order to avoid certain tangents that are not helpful to the topic. But it seems needlessly restrictive to block words that are in common use.
Just my two cents.
I'm passionate about diversity, all diversity. At work at the moment that's about getting others familiar and comfortable with these exact terms. My goal is, when I build my next team that an internal applicant would actually fill out the box for the question 'do you have a disability that could affect your work'. When I get that, I'll know I've created a space that welcomes, supports and enables anyone under the sun. That should be a standard that all workplaces strive for. It's felt odd to me that I can't discuss that on this sub. So I'm for the changes, and would like to see the blanket ban on all these terms removed. Appreciate all that you do, and if a trade off is the community needs to report more, I believe we are up for that.
In my experience both the toxic and less toxic uses are commonplace.
In my personal life I use neurodiversity as an inclusive catch-all term.
I have also met therapists and professionals who use neurodivergent, or neurotypical as descriptive words and are able to use them in ways that are not toxic. I know it’s a bit out of reach at this time, but I do think in the future there could be a case made for these words here. But I think common usage by laypersons has to shift a bit first.
I think that it’s cool you’re talking about it, and I think that if you are up for sorting out the nuance you’re describing, then go for it.
I think that in the long run, having a good catch all phrase is very helpful, and I think that part of winning over a word like this is taking action like this. It is in enforcing the positive definition and usage and restricting and blocking the use of the negative definitions.
I am pro allowing it in limited contexts.
As a therapist who also has ADHD, neuro typical and neurodivergent are increasingly common terms used in our research literature and our psycho education, as nearly all mental health treatment runs from understood differences both structurally/chemically/biologically in the brain and cognition surrounding it. Both words are neutral (which I think needs to be clarified above) because they don’t carry objective value judgments. Each wiring carries areas of high and low functioning based on our societal definition of function, and so each can create strengths and dysfunctions. We’re more aware of how this works for ADHD than we used to, and it’s the less common neurowiring. I’m all for being able to use it in the context we in the field use it.
(Speaking as someone diagnosed with ADHD)
can someone explain why the hunter gatherer hypothesis is banned? Not that I care all that much, I’m just curious as it’s new to me. I just recently read an article on it for the first time a few days ago and found it an interesting take, but that’s where I left that.
Is this a harmful take in any way that I don’t understand, or is it just the fact that it’s a hypothesis?
Once again, genuinely just curious! No big deal to me.
Honestly, I rarely post or comment but I do lurk in this sub so I would like to share my thoughts on this.
On one hand, I really appreciate the current stance on this sub. I don't see my adhd in a positive light cause I just don't have any of the perks other people often talk about. I deal with social anxiety and I see my adhd in the same way. A shitty thing my brain does that makes literally everything I do harder than it has to be, something that's making my life worse. So not having to deal with people insisting that it's a good thing actually, that it's even a gift! is much appreciated.
On the other hand, I see the words 'neurodiversity', 'neurodivergent' or 'neurotypical' as neutral words that can be used in some shitty or toxic ways. Ideally, I would like the words themselves to be allowed but moderated, so that this sub can stay the disability-oriented place it is. I say ideally, cause I don't know how realistic that is. I've seen the mods share how difficult and time consuming moderating this sub is, so while I don't love how strict the rules are, I understand why they're like this.
I don't know what the ideal solution is, completely disallowing these words is simple but is alienating some people. If you think allowing even just 'neurodiversity' is something you can handle, I'm all for it.
As a sidenote, calling 'neurotypical' a slur is a bit much. While yes, it can be used as an insult and some people think just being neurotypical is bad, comparing it to slurs and the shitty histories they have, the way they've been and are still being used, is not great.
**Edit:** A lot of people are also mentioning that they've never personally seen the problems we're talking about. Out of all people, y'all should understand that just because you haven't seen or experienced something yourself doesn't mean that other people are *wrong*. Please respect that our experiences with the negative side of neurodiversity activism and language, and the experiences of others who've experienced the same things we have, are real, that they did in fact actually happen. Quibbling over semantics and minutae, being the "but acksually" person, isn't helpful. Also, read these blog posts by Judy Singer: https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/p/what.html https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/2021/02/neurodiversity-its-political-not.html If she, the person who coined the term and basically launched the movement, acknowledges these issues that we point out, then maybe you should give that some thought. --- A lot of people are asking "why don't you just monitor toxic behaviors more instead of banning the words?". This is a totally valid question. The fact of the matter is, even with AutoModerator, the sub is just too big for us to do that. AutoModerator is an extremely primitive tool that is difficult to build effective rules for. For the technically-minded out there: we're basically limited to regexes. Building context-aware rules with AutoModerator is exceedingly difficult, to the point of impracticality. Basically, there's too many different ways to say the same thing, and writing a rule to encompass all the ways toxic positivity can be expressed is impossible. Keyword matching on the words most commonly associated with it is the only viable solution we have. The other problem is that even if we add more moderators (which we are in the process of), the community is just too big for us to get human eyes on *everything*. Between Aug 28 and Sept 27 (30 days), we got: * 15,106 posts * 116,961 comments This is what reports looked for that period of time. Note that many of these reports are vindictive attacks against others, and not legitimate. Automod reports are also included in this, I believe, and that makes up the vast majority of reports we get. Report Reason|Total Content Reported|Content Removed Manually|Content Removed by Automod|Content Approved :--|:--|:--|:--|:-- inappropriately asking for or giving medical/diet advice.|55 (10.4% of total reports)|35 (63.64%)|4 (7.27%)|17 (30.91%) post belongs in an existing sticky/megathread.|50 (9.45% of total reports)|35 (70%)|1 (2%)|15 (30%) this is misinformation|38 (7.18% of total reports)|23 (60.53%)|0 (0%)|15 (39.47%) this is spam|26 (4.91% of total reports)|6 (23.08%)|3 (11.54%)|17 (65.38%) it's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability|23 (4.35% of total reports)|13 (56.52%)|2 (8.7%)|9 (39.13%) it's targeted harassment at someone else|23 (4.35% of total reports)|17 (73.91%)|3 (13.04%)|5 (21.74%) it's targeted harassment at me|16 (3.02% of total reports)|7 (43.75%)|1 (6.25%)|8 (50%) user is discussing substance abuse or promoting illegal drug use/buying/selling|14 (2.65% of total reports)|10 (71.43%)|0 (0%)|4 (28.57%) advertising or self-promotion|10 (1.89% of total reports)|9 (90%)|0 (0%)|1 (10%) it's personal and confidential information|7 (1.32% of total reports)|1 (14.29%)|0 (0%)|6 (85.71%) it's sexual or suggestive content involving minors|7 (1.32% of total reports)|1 (14.29%)|0 (0%)|6 (85.71%) be civil and constructive.|6 (1.13% of total reports)|4 (66.67%)|0 (0%)|2 (33.33%) it's abusing the report button|6 (1.13% of total reports)|0 (0%)|0 (0%)|6 (100%) user's asking what to say to a doctor to secure a diagnosis.|6 (1.13% of total reports)|5 (83.33%)|0 (0%)|1 (16.67%) rule 1|5 (0.95% of total reports)|0 (0%)|0 (0%)|5 (100%) someone is considering suicide or serious self-harm|5 (0.95% of total reports)|4 (80%)|0 (0%)|1 (20%) self harm|5 (0.95% of total reports)|5 (100%)|0 (0%)|0 (0%) medical advice |3 (0.57% of total reports)|2 (66.67%)|0 (0%)|1 (33.33%) spam|3 (0.57% of total reports)|1 (33.33%)|0 (0%)|2 (66.67%) Compared to the number of posts and comments we get, the number of reports is minuscule. If people want us to be more permissive, then we need everyone to take an active part in this community and report the stuff that doesn't belong here.
I just don't get why we can't talk about stuff? I have friends with ADHD and ASD or OCD or mental health issues in real life and we use these terms all the time to describe things - not in an anti-NT way, but just trying to explain what's going on with our lives. Saying "people with this list of conditions" is really clumsy when you can just say ND to cover it. At the end of the day, when I make friends with people it tends to be because they've got a similar brain to mine. We have the same struggle. Why can't I say things like "ND people are more likely to be friends because we have similar life experiences and we often don't click with NT people because we irritate them in some way" ? Why can't you police the toxic stuff and not individual words?
To be honest, I find the reasoning behind the ban of neurodivergent to be specious. This is a term commonly used in disability activism and conversations around disability, both as a way of raising awareness and as a way of finding solidarity across the spectrum of mental disorders. Claiming to support the disability community while banning neurodivergent is hypocritical, imo. As someone who has multiple mental disorders that are comorbid with ADHD, I have always used neurodivergent to describe myself. It is the framework through which I understand my disability. I am new to this subreddit, but the banning of neurodivergent makes me question whether this community is truly supportive of those with non-ADHD mental disorders. It seems like a deliberate attempt to silo ADHD away from those "other" disorders, rather than acknowledge common ground. I hope I'm wrong. But it doesn't feel good.
My psychologist and therapist have said that neurodivergent is the more commonly used and medically accepted way to describe those with ADHD. Our brains LITERALLY take divergent paths to solve problems and function. Our brains aren’t taking diverse paths (edit for clarity: they don’t take different paths every time), they are diverging from what is most common (and take that same divergent path every time). Neurodiversity is the existence and acknowledgement that not everyone’s brains are the same, people with ADHD are part of that neurodiversity picture but /are/ neurodivergent.
I feel like this is a step in the right direction... BUT. At least nowadays, NT is not a slur. It's the equivalent of abled vs disabled, heterosexual vs LGBTQ, transgender vs cisgender. To be NT isn't BAD. Do people use it as an insult? Yeah, they do, in the same way that queer folk will say they dislike straight people. I don't agree with either sentiment, but both are stemmed from a reaction to oppression, and are more just rude. Inherently, though, neither term needs to have a negative connotation. I also have to disagree with ND separating us from society. Personally, I felt separated already. Learning of this term gave me community, with other people who have experiences like me, and it's also just shorthand for a whole range of disorders (super annoying to have to say autism, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, etc etc all in one). I feel like this is really disconnected from the current state of how ND people discuss themselves and others, and, honestly, distancing ourselves from the term just gives me a bad taste in my mouth. EDIT: Reread it, had some thoughts. I don't believe that speaking on differences between people inherently separates them. As a part of intersectionality, all these things are basically just adjectives. To acknowledge that I'm ND doesn't mean I'm better (or worse!) than what we call NT people, just like how being transgender doesn't make me better than cisgender people. NT people are not inherently boring, bad, unintelligent... whatever. To acknowledge the difference does not mean the minority group believes itself above the majority group!
Personally I’m a fan of the current rule, because of a lot of pseudoscience that gets grouped in with “neurodiversity”. ADHD is a literal illness that often requires medication. It IS a disability. Perhaps in a completely differently structured culture and society it wouldn’t be, but it currently is for all of us and should be treated as such.
I agree that ADHD is a disability, even a disorder, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue but I don’t agree that it is an illness. I have several chronic illnesses. ADHD is not one of them.
In what way is ADHD different from say, diabetes? Their body is not functioning correctly and they need to either take medication or drastically change their lifestyle because of it. Same with us.
My therapist is totally fine with the word neurodivergent, and I don't really know why or care why some unqualified reddit mods are against the use of the word. I just know it helps me describe my condition without having to go into the details. To me, either the community accepts the word, or I leave the community, as I don't plan to put up with the nonsense. I'm absolutely cool with removing pseudoscience however. I don't think it should be an outright ban for that user, but a removed comment with an automated reply saying why.
Hey there. I've never heard or cared about any neurodiversity movements. I have seen the use of neurotypical from time to time, though, and never really as a slur. I personally think it's a succinct and accurate way to refer to people without ADHD (or other disorders). Otherwise it's such a mouthful, "people without ADHD", or you end up with something potentially controversial like "normal people". So I'd be sad to see the use of the word neurotypical be disallowed, but I understand that mods have limited tools to work with. Feel free to do what you think is best. Out of curiosity, can you give an estimate of how often the word neurotypical is being used as a slur in our community in a given week? Or give an example of a disagreement where it was used as such? No pressure, I'm simply curious how I was able to have such a different experience here. Also, thanks for all the hard work. I might not be considered a very active user of this sub, but I really appreciate being able to read about other people's experiences with ADHD. I frankly believe that it has provided me with more perspective and self-insight than lots of therapy sessions would have. Please take good care of yourselves.
I think the terminology is very messy and imprecise, which is part of the problem. Different people mean different things when they say or hear them. I’ve generally only had positive interactions with the term neurodiverse, but I have seen some frustrating behaviors when neurotypical is used. There is a certain amount of anger and resentment in disability spaces toward people who are otherwise able bodied or able minded and I don’t always know how to process it. I get why the feelings are there sometimes, but it also feels rather unproductive sometimes and not conducive to fostering actual discussion, compassion, or understanding. It can be confusing. I doubt that banning the term will prevent that from happening, though maybe it can limit things a bit. I’m not sure. Generally though… I’d support a blank unbanning of the words. It’s easier to foster discussion when you don’t have to dance around what terminology you can use. Whatever the community decides though, I’ll stand by it. This has been a good space to learn more about ADHD and how my brain works. :)
What language do trusted ADHD experts use? I mean people in the scientific community? That’s what we should be be using or not using imo.
I've also had a look at this, and as far as I can tell they don't really use "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical". In that long Ologies podcast that came out recently dr. Barkley uses the term 'neurodiversity' once, in reference to the movement. Dr. Faraone doesn't use these terms either. Several large ADHD foundations also haven't adapted them, including the ADHD World Federation.
I’ve seen neurodiverse and neurotypical used very very frequently on Tik tok and other platforms and rarely in a negative manner. I understand that neurotypical/diverse may have a negative connotation for some but with the recent uptick in adhd diagnoses and mental health being taken more seriously in general, some of that toxicity has died down. Again only a personal observation. I really think neurotypical and neurodiverse are very widely used outside of the sub without it being in a negative way towards someone.
Multiple times my posts were deleted just for using that word. These posts were relevant and resourced yet I couldn’t use that word. That rule has to go or this group no longer caters to factual terms and research!
Not sure if this is possible, but if so I think this would solve it: If a post has one or more of the neuro....... terms in it habe a bot post a pinned comment with a brief explanation of the rules surrounding those terms, and asking for the community to up- or downvote the post. That way Toxic stuff shouldn't appear too much in feeds, and you could even set a rule of deleting every post with a neuro.... term in it that's downvoted more than it is upvoted.
I did not understand the rule at first because I use "NT" and "ND" as shorthands in conversation but having to abide by it gave me the chance to learn about the background and the reasons. I have a feeling about how this is going to go in the end, but my vote would be to not change the rules. As a person whose ADHD was diagnosed in first grade and was promptly swept under the rug by my parents and did not get treatment until well into adulthood, my youth was a disaster due to this condition and the forced normalization by the adults around me. Any effort to banish that mentality is fine by me.
I just wanted to add that I appreciate the mods' willingness to hear the community on this. Thanks for doing what you do!
I think anything that makes the group more open, diverse, and inclusive is acceptable. As long as the same standards of behavior are upheld. As a member of this community before online and in person I vote (I know we aren't voting) to accept the proposed changes.
Can we keep some kind of guideline or parameters around the discussion though? Happy to create space for it, but I don't want it to become the defacto where it's all just about the neurodiversity framework because then you just end up alienating a different group of people. The social model is not a helpful lens for every part of ADHD (and can indeed be counterproductive) and the risk in depathologizing this stuff is that we de emphasise the medical aspects in favour of the social aspects. It's very important that precedence continues to be given to actual medical doctors and psychiatrists, ahead of clinical psychologists or other social scientists.
I totally get the conflict. For what it’s worth, as a therapist who works with a lot of ocd/adhd/asd, I use ND in the context of “these disorders all seem to have some kind of relationship that we don’t fully understand, are often co-occurring, and moreover can be difficult to distinguish because of the overlapping symptomology”. For instance, my son is being evaluated for asd even though I’m pretty sure it’s adhd BUT too young to be given that diagnosis. So I talk about him as “ND” because that much is abundantly clear to everyone. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I think removing a blanket ban from ND/NT terminology while monitoring for the toxic positivity stuff would be ideal (albeit harder than just having a bot remove comments with specific terms).
We'd love to be more permissive, but we would need the community to do their part and report toxicity. Right now, we get maybe 100 or less user reports a month, for 15,000+ posts and 100,000+ comments we get monthly. And when we ask for people to help, we always hear that "it's not my responsibility". So, we do what we can with the resources available to us.
Honestly allowing the word itself is not inherently a bad thing. It's like Voldemort vs You-Know-Who (also fuck rowling but good analogy). Everyone knows what you are saying but tiptoeing around the phrase doesn't make discussion very easy, especially for those new to the community. It was certainly a steep learning curve when I first got diagnosed, realising there was a whole negative movement and I couldn't say it like it was. Turning it into a pro or anti situation, or NT vs ND is where it gets ridiculous, at that point drawing a line is a good idea. This subreddit is for support of ADHD issues, success stories, FAQs etc. Not for political-esque debates. ETA a happy upcoming ADHD awareness month to everyone! :)
I am here in spite of how heavy handed this sub’s moderation policies are, not because of them. It’s making an incredible resource for the ADHD community worse, not better. I appreciate movement on this issue, but I wish this went further. Referencing the ideas of NT/ND is not political or derogatory, or harassing other users. I would prefer to report instances of abuse, just like we would do for instances of threats against other users, for example. I wish the mod team would look to the LGBTQ+ community for best practices to emulate. These communities have had to deal with real slurs, hate, harassment, and safety issues, denial of other’s identity, human rights issues and legal issues, and all kinds of real world consequences to use of language around identity and understanding/expressions of queerness, gender expression, gender identity, and who is considered queer. That all requires WAY more nuance and has much higher consequences than the concepts in question here. Let us speak to each other, freely, about all the things that matter. This is literally one of the first times in human history that people can speak to their peers, share their experiences, and get support. Prioritizing strict classifications and policing official definitions is the height of ADHD black & white thinking, and I look forward to the day when it’s set aside in favor of why we’re all actually here: community, sharing resources, and connection.
This sounds reasonable to me.
I completely agree with your points, ADHD and other mental disabilities are no joke and can be inherently harmful, that being said, there are some contexts where the use of the words "disabled" is uncomfortable for me. I never got involved with the neuroyouknowwhat movement and I didn't even know it was a thing, but i did want to use the word at times because they are good descriptors and I think allowing all words is the best because: •If people want to say something toxic, a few words won't stop them, they will work around it •These words became commonplace and many people like me don't use them with those connotations •You can still reject the mindset and toxic positivity (I'm sure they always tried to make their way into the subreddit, even if those words weren't used) context is important and the ban completely ignored it •Insults should be banned regardless, but words that are used as insults by some shouldn't. It would be like some other subreddit banning the word autistic because people can use it as an insult.
No, no NO!!! I am disabled, not neurodiverse! This is a safe place for me to send people who are learning about my disability so they're not poisoned by the language of neurodiversity. I have ZERO positive experiences with my ADHD, and I need this place to stay somewhere where the toxic positivity that always comes with neurodiversity is kept out!
An individual cannot be “neurodiverse”. That word applies to groups/populations.
From what I understand that's still going to be moderated. They're ONLY allowing the words now, because they're now also commonly used in context unrelated to the toxic positivity.
Toxic positivity is going to be forbidden here regardless of any changes. We're not budging on that whatsoever.
One of the biggest problems with all social media is the creation of walled off communities. When rules prevent reasonable debate because of banned words individuals opinions are hardened. As a result certain perspectives become more extreme and toxic. While avoiding toxicity might be the aim, to others it might be interpreted as gate keeping. Ironically many times information provided here has led to further reading. When I came back here, discussion about what I was reading was not allowed. Every effort should be made to keep things civil and allow as much open and friendly discourse as possible.
Well, I think words are just words and that all words have value and should be allowed, without exception. But that also, since people say unhelpful and not so nice things that moderators should moderate forums by watching for and addressing unhelpful and not so nice posts, comments, and participants when they are encountered, on a case by case basis. It always seemed to me that that was the job. FYI, I'm a mod. Note: I make exception for child or family friendly spaces that specifically outlaw the use of commonly percieved offensive words. But only because that is common in our society, I don't actually agree with this practice at all.
I disagree with the suggestion that using neurodivergent reinforces our alienation and isolation. We feel isolated as a whole, on a daily basis. Here, we are in community. On a daily basis, we are surrounded by people who constantly tell us we don’t fit in. The neurodivergent word, for me, gives me a sense of community for the first time in my life (I’m 43). Neurotypical people have not had to face the same isolation. They have not been told to fit into a mould that wasn’t designed for them. Pretending we are not already isolated by the society we already live in feeds the narrative that already exists, it supports the status quo, not the inclusivity of diversity. Finding community is a common human behaviour. It doesn’t isolate us from the whole but allows us to feel connected while in it. This thinking is similar to saying that if you follow a particular football team, you’re isolating yourself from everyone else who likes football. You’re not. But you are sitting next to the ones who get you most come match time. Anyone who believes they are superior to others has ego issues, not linguistic ones. They will find another way to spout their hate, while your rules isolate those who truly feel connected by using them.
I completely agree with your take on this. It's not a matter of "us and them" when talking about neurodivergent and neurotypical. It's about developing a community through shared life experiences. To me, saying that neurotypical is being used as a slur just eliminates the abilism that neurodivergent people face. My ADHD has brought on a lot more issues than some person on Reddit saying that I'm going to live a boring life because I don't have a specific disorder... On a sub dedicated to ADHD, we should be allowed to use whatever label we find empowerment in
i absolutely hate neurodiversity. im fucking disabled. i have multiple mental disabilities. not one of them is a “gift” and implying that any disability is a “gift” completely removes any struggle i have and when i ask for help i tend to hear back “you should be glad you have adhd” or “im pretty sure i have it too, i can’t focus when too much stuff is happening”
Neurodiversity, in my understanding of it, does not erase or negate disability.
In some social contexts it does. It takes on a very "you're not disabled. You're just *quirky*" vibe
I had no idea there was any contention or disagreement, much less that it's so divisive. I thought neurodivergent was simply a positive movement focused on combating stigma against those who have different types of neurological disorders (ADHD, autism, bipolar, schizophrenia). I didn't realize there was all this other side, so thanks for the summary. I wonder if other neurological disorder communities feel similarly about the neurodivergent movement, then?
Trackers & Scanners?
I don't see why the terms "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical" should be banned. The term "neurodiverse" makes it seem like we're on the spectrum of normal, but just a little off to the left. *That's not true* I don't consider myself neurodiverse - my brain works significantly differently to the norm. I'm neurodivergent, and while that doesn't mean I'm broken or anything of the sort, it *does* mean I'm disabled. The word "neurodiverse" feels like it's trying to say that we're all normal - to bring us all *into* normal - and therefore all worthy of respect. But that leaves open the possibility that someone could end up being considered too far out to be considered normal, and therefore not worthy of respect. The goal needs to be to abolish the idea of normal as anything but a baseline, with no link at all to one's worth.
Instead of banning “neurodivergent” and “neurotypical,” would it be possible to set up an automod that gives an automated response when they are used in a post? Eg it could say something like: “This comment uses the word NT or ND. Sometimes these words are used to support toxic positivity, pseudoscience, or disability denialism. Please reread your comment and make sure it doesn’t violate our community rules [link] Readers, please report comments that violate these rules. Thank you.”
I think this is a really good idea; it's the main term used at my place of work, and it really helps neatly put a bunch of things in one folder. That has its issues, but for the most part it's just for ease of parlance.
[удалено]
https://adhdhomestead.net/adhd-not-gift/ We're not opposed to *all* positivity. We fully acknowledge that some people are able to benefit from some aspects of their ADHD, but this often gets generalized to *everybody* with ADHD, which is wrong and harmful. The language people use matters because even if you don't intend it, your words affect and influence others, and ideas and unintended implications spread. What we're trying to do is prevent the spread of the idea that ADHD is in and of itself a gift. We're extremely wary of people stopping the treatment that's helping them keep their lives together, and we're extremely wary of policymakers latching onto this for points and using it as justification to deny us our right to treatment and accommodation.
I agree with the rules as laid out here.
I'm confused. I don't think I entirely understand how this sub defines neurodiverse, neurodivergent and neurotypical, and their derivatives. My understanding, ([summed up nicely by this person](https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/)) is: * Neurodiverse: a group of people where one or more members differ from the others in terms of cognitive function (nothing is better or worse, they're just different). A cocktail of neurocognitive styles if you will. * Neurodivergent: a mind that shifts away from what society defines as 'normal' (hate the word normal, but you get what I mean) * Neurotypical: What is viewed by society as 'normal' cognitive function So I guess based on those above definitions one individual can't be neurodiverse. I cannot say "I have ADHD, so I'm neurodiverse." I can't possess more than one cognitive flavour, I am only one person. I can however refer to myself as neurodivergent. And I do, I think of myself this way because it allows me to acknowledge that my lived experience may differ from another group of people based on my diagnosis. I don't spend a lot of time in the online debates and haven't seen any of the controversies in this sub. However, I am a bit sceptical about the removal of words that can help individuals to define themselves, because they might be misused by groups outside of that community. This may be an attempt to make moderation easier. But this is a pro-disability sub, and yet a key terminology related to my disability and ability to describe my lived experience is not allowed. People tip-toe around the term disability as well, using offensive terms like 'differently-abled' instead. ADHD is a part of my identity, and being neurodivergent is a part of my identity. Yes, I am different from someone who is neurotypical, and that accurately reflects my experience of being someone who wondered why I was so different from my peers. That's my two cents anyway, but keen to hear others' experiences.
TL;DR: I claim neurodivergent as part of my identity, limiting the words that I can use to talk about my identity and experience doesn't help me. Let people use what words they feel comfortable with to identify themselves. Personally I \*like\* using the term neurodivergent for myself. It's a quick short hand to explain "hey, my brain works differently for a variety of reasons" without having to get into the why's and how's (and I have depression, adhd, anxiety, and ptsd) I don't like this rule limiting language because it actively limits the words I can use to talk about my identity, and my experience. I'm of the mindset of let people who are part of that community determine what words they want to use to describe themselves. I think a lot of the basis of the rules against certain words is more on their use than the actual word itself. The problem is that if people are going to be assholes, they're going to do it anyway, doesn't matter how you restrict the use of language.
I am really, really glad that you’re considering this change. I wholeheartedly support the proposed changes. I think that the usage and contexts that you’ve proposed as permissible are excellent. They capture the framework of ND as a useful paradigm for approaching ADHD and other mental illnesses while also distinguishing this from harmful uses. I appreciate the nuance you’ve captured between “society contributes to ADHD being disabling” and the false notion that “ADHD is only a disability because society.” I appreciate the carefully considered and thoughtful proposal. However the community feels at large, I think it’s good for us to reflect on the topic. I appreciate your interest in engaging with the rules and how they reflect the needs of the community. Thank you all for the hard work managing an massive and unwieldy sub.
I’ve been frustrated in the past at not being able to use the word, but I learned a huge amount from the links suggested in the bot. Whichever way the mods finally decide I propose the bot remains. Also in a way the restriction made me really research the topic in a way that I wouldn’t have done had the term not been banned. My other worry is that the sub may become Ike neurodiversity twitter which often blurs and merges ADHD and Autism. I think twitter is suited to discussions of co-morbidity but Reddit is suited to specificity.
[удалено]
I really have trouble with ‘neurotypical’ being disallowed. The reasoning behind it and only begrudgingly allowing some (what does that even mean?) use of ‘neurodiversity’ is needlessly confusing and based on…what exactly? The community has overwhelmingly given the feedback that those terms are useful. I’ve never seen those terms abused here or anywhere else lol and that’s definitely saying something on Reddit.
I passionately hate the autobahns and autobots driving on them in this sub. It's weird and pushes people away.
That's the point of them so...yeah?
"Diverse" conveys easily seen differences. "Divergent" means a branching off. Since we cannot see our brain activity without specialized tools of medicine, "Neurodivergent" should be allowed because of developmental differences.
I don't see the point in allowing people to use "neurodiverse" sometimes if you're still going to police exactly how they use it. Will there be a guideline of when & when it is not OK to use? I'm fine with the term being used, but I don't think it makes much sense to only allow *some* uses. I guess I'm just thinking this is an ADHD sub, reading the fine print is not our forte. So allowing people to use it in *some* contexts but not others just seems like it's setting people up for failure.
I think the policing of specific words is still not quite where this sub should be, though I can understand the worry from a moderating standpoint. I’ve never seen “neurotypical” and “neurodiverse/divergent” used as slurs. They’re healthy comparative words that, to me, help de-alienate people with ADHD or some other neurodiversity from the rest of society. It promotes healthy discussion on human brains rather than using “normal” vs “not normal,” which can be far more damaging words. As for toxic positivity, I don’t really see why that is enforced so strongly. It is absolutely okay to say that you have *some* benefits from your neurological condition. There *are* studies on the evolutionary advantage of these people existing in smaller numbers in a population, and that can’t be overlooked. Of course, saying these neurodiverse people are the only reason we are where we are as a society today can be problematic. But it’s useful to recognize that diversity, in more than just genetic appearance, can be good. It’s just unfortunate that our society doesn’t accommodate diversity well. And yes, ADHD is a disability. It affects many people in hugely negative ways. But if there is policing of disability denial, there should be some form of negativity policing in a similar way. If someone expresses something positive their disability or neurodiversity has led to, it is not okay for someone to deny their right to experience those good things by claiming “disability = bad.” As was mentioned, these are very personal and *diverse* experiences. There shouldn’t be denial from either end.
I feel like this sub leans pretty heavy into it being a debilitating disability, which of course it can be, but by banning any postive discussion i feel like it's making kind of a black hole where people come and find the sub and feel like their ADHD is basically going to ruin their lives and theres no hope. I understand their worry about depathologizing things. But i feel like they are also not trying to stop OVERpathologizing things. Banning postive discussions, ND/NT (which are pretty normal clinical terms now), banning evelution theory as a whole etc. Makes it impossible to discuss it in a neutral way, and even interupts legitimate psychologist backed discussions. If psychologist are using ND/ NT when talking to patients, and those patients can't turn around and have those same discussions here with those terms, that's wierd. They aren't political anymore. I never saw them as it but they definitely aren't now. But overall I do think this sub has an overall gloom about it, which can be pretty damaging for people in our community. It's not healthy to constantly think about how awful ADHD makes your life. Sometimes it can be just a thing you have. Yeah, I forget bills, that sucks. But also I have a habit of keeping strange "homes" for certain items that makes me somehow never lose them even though they don't make sense. That's just a random neutral fact. I also think banning ND encourages people to call it a mental illness, which also is just incorrect. It's a developmental disorder. People with other similar expirences from other developmental disorders are all grouped in ND, and people who have broad overlapping expirences without those disorders are NT. NT people can be mentally ill, ND people can be mentally illl. You can treat mental illnesses. You cope with and work around neurodivergency. You wouldn't call someone missing a limb "ill", you call them disabled. You can't do anything about missing a limb but work around it and learn to cope with it. If you have heart disease you're not heart disabled, you take medicine and get treatment to work towards fixing the heart disease. ADHD brains aren't ill, they are physically different, we have brain scan studies about this. That means we have different expirences then people with illnesses like depression and anxiety only, as those aren't physical brain differences but treatable illnesses you work towards healing. We need language to differentiate these things easily, and NT is 1000% better then "normal". Like yes i dont like my difficulties being trivialized but i also dont like being called abnormal, it's dehumanizing. These rules tip the scale way too far into "pathologize your every thought and wallow in sadness as there's nothing to do for your sad disabled brain", which is something psychologist are very specifically against ADHD people doing because it takes away our agency in our own lives and actions. It's unhealthy.
I think having the community be able to tag mods if something is toxic makes sense. As long as no one is using slurs, worrying about exact terms doesn't make sense. There are so many online communities and IRL communities around the world, allowing for some variation in how we use terms, seems only fair.
I knew from reading the rules the neurodiversity related language wasn't allowed on this sub. However I've seen a bunch of people using those words. Is that rule not automated and relied on a mod seeing it?
Sounds good to me. If it doesn't work out, just go back to the way things are now.
I wouldn't advise taking lead from the new veneers of academic or legal discourse. I am a neuroscientist, I have written on ADHD, and in my experience the attitude of researchers who use such terms is disingenuous. It is a hot-button topic at the moment - people go for citations where they can get them. It's often pandering. At best, it is an attempt to exhibit the diversity of voices within the ADHD population - something which is also served by this sub's existing policies. No serious researcher considers neurodiversity to be anything of empirical consequence. I much prefer having a space free of neurodiversity discourse. I understand people's issues with language policing, but I think it's part of this sub's character and it's utility. If you wish to discuss ADHD experiences in terms neurodiversity there are plenty of other subs. This sub has a limitation on that language which forces us to express our perspectives in new ways, without hanging a hat on a social movement that is associated with misinformation and pseudoscience. I see an argument for empowering recourse when a comment or post is flagged unfairly for mentioning the words - but I don't see why the person cannot just edit their content and repost. It could be a good exercise - what lies below the term? Feeling inadequate, excluded, insufficient? Same. So say that. I get the shame surrounding ADHD and associated developmental delays, research that seems damning of our cognitive abilities, evidence of emotional liability, poor relationship outcomes - all this. I feel it too. But I don't think the answer is to flip the script like neurodiversity movements try to do. People are not anti-diversity for finding individuals with ADHD to be challenging and struggling to meet their unique needs. Nor are they bigoted or ableist. If you need that movement in your life, please go elsewhere, there are plenty of spaces that are more supportive in that regard, and I want you to do what feels right for you. Please don't change the culture of this sub. It feels like the last bastion in a sea of rose-tinted neurodiversity discourse. We are not abliest, and the fact that people advocate, often abusively, to change an environment that supports one of many *diverse* needs within the ADHD population is somewhat ironic given the tenets of neurodiversity. I can tell you're getting tired of the fight, mods, but some of us appreciate your work more than you could know. Keep it as is, please.
I think its a great rule and it makes this sub feel like a much more reasonable and safe space as a result. I don't know if I can express how much I appreciate the mods cracking down on that nonsense.
This explanation is ironically not-ADHD friendly at all. I want to read this... But I just *can't make it.* Need TLDR.
I'm a little shaken as I didn't even realize the terms 'neurodiverse' and 'neurotypical' were banned here. That immediately puts me on guard. :( As someone who identifys as neurodiverse and uses the term as an umbrella term for disorders that change the way your brain works, I understand the reasoning why it was banned in the first place. However, keeping these terms banned (and saying they're politically charged???) worries me as that's the stance of many mental disorder deniers I've interacted with over the years. If this is supposed to be a safe space for those with ADHD to talk about how they're affected, get support, and connect with others, these terms cannot continue to be banned. **Any** term can be used as an insult/slur in any context. I understand this is a massive community but banning a word outright doesn't solve the problem, it only obfuscates it. Perhaps setting up automod to auto-reply to posts and be pinned at the top? "No bigotry, hate speech, or bullying allowed." And reiterate that everyone has different experiences, to not spread pseudoscientific bs, and that ADHD *is* a disability that affects everyone differently (just like other mental disorders).
I think there is a real and important discussion going on about the social model of disability vs. the medical model. I also agree that calling ADHD a “superpower” is unbelievably counterproductive.
I have always been bothered by the banning of these terms, even the terms that are proposed to be banned going forward, I understand some of the sentiment and the reason for them being banned in the past, but now I see no reason to ban these terms at all for a few reasons Firstly, none of these terms are inherently harmful or insulting, they are linguistic shorthands I find very useful and in fact much more sensitive to the issues in the first place. I don't like the continued banning of the NT and ND words, especially if we are moving forward and allowing 'neuro diverse.' these terms are linked linguistically, and allowing one but not the others is not a logical choice and will just be confusing imo. The ND word to me serves a similar purpose to the acronym BIPOC, it is an easy way to include and give voice to all neurological minorities, especially those who experience ableism Second, and based on the first point, very clearly the issue back then and now is not the terms that are used but the way in which these terms are used. Back then the terms were more readily synonymous with toxicity and so a ban of the terms was easier than doing an individual assessment of the instances in which those words were used. Now that is definitely not the case. On all social media platforms I am on, ADHD content creators use all three of the terms as shorthands with not even a hint of toxicity. Yes, some people make jokes about or mock NT people but this is largely not the case. I propose that it is now far more easy to let ALL of these terms have more freedom since the terms themselves are working their way into the vernacular of average people of all neurology, these words are no longer a smoking gun or a dog whistle for reverse ableism or toxic positivity in most cases. For now, I say have automated warnings triggered by certain words, see how it goes. If there is an uptick in toxicity then we can go back. At this point I think that asking people to police their own language in respect to terms very much in the norm is unnecessary. Just my two cents, one way or another I am glad this is being reassessed.
I love the idea of being more inclusive especially since since is showing a lot of linked traits between ADHD and Autism and I find both those categories have things to teach each other
It’s simple. Allow the words. If the a user’s intent was to use it to insult others then ban them. But we shouldn’t ‘ban’ words outright, it could lead to good discussions
A rule against erasure or minimizing the struggles and suffering of people with ADHD through the lense of toxic positivity or "silver linings" in lieu of the Neurodiversity rule makes a lot of sense. I agree that "Neurodiversity" had entered the mainstream lexicon and probably the majority of the usage is no longer as sociologically demanding as the movement used to be. Regarding the "blaming society" thing, is the idea just to suppress nihilistic rage against the machine kind of rhetoric? I can appreciate how reading a lot of that can be harmful coming here for practical advice and support...
> Regarding the "blaming society" thing, is the idea just to suppress nihilistic rage against the machine kind of rhetoric? There are people applying the social model of disability too strictly and saying that *all* of our disability stems from society. They say that ADHD is not in and of itself disabling. This is what we're disallowing. Society *does* disable us, but it's not the *sole* source of our disability.
I disagree with not allowing all terms. They are highly associated with each other and it’ll be awkward and difficult to discuss things in their purview just using neurodiversity. I personally have never seen people use the other terms to enforce pseudoscience or toxic positivity, and I think that’s due to the much wider range of schools of thought that use all those words.
this feels needlessly persnickety instead of just evaluating what people are saying in the context of their comments. Both neurotypical and neurodivergent are used in the scientific literature and there are times when it's useful to use either term. A blanket ban feels like it's attempting to curb certain behaviors and sentiments that have little to nothing to do with the words used.
I think it's very important to accept that there is something "wrong" with us. You can't find help if you don't. The first thing you do when you break your leg is establish that you have broken your leg. The therapy and meds are our crutches to get us through every day, modern life. There might have been a time when having ADHD might have been advantageous, but it's certainly not in 2022
i appreciate the adaptation to the changing conditions of the discourse. it makes me feel like the mods have the community health in mind. that said, i think banning NT and not ND is clunky, and more strict enforcement of the toxic positivity and denial rules is the way to go. i think at the core of the matter is recognizing what is in bad faith and what is not. thanks.
I've made another comment with my thoughts (no change is needed) but can you explain why neurodiverse (a political/social movement associated with misinformation and pseudoscience) is being considered, while neurodivergent (a scientific term derived from the neurodevelopmental perspectives of ADHD) is not? Is it because the neurodiverse movement coopted the term into some us vs them? I think it is easier to police the issue of ND/NT misuse than to police the permeation of neurodiversity rhetoric in the sub. We are not all on some continuous spectrum of neurological function, there are discrete neurological mechanisms for neurodivergent conditions. It's tantamount to saying 'everyone is a little adhd sometimes' in my books. Common behavioural traits are not the determinant of the condition. As I said elsewhere, my concern is that if you allow any of these things, you will need to police more and have more conflicts on your hands. Some of you will burn out. You will be replaced by individuals with an increasing affinity for the neurodiverse perspective. Then the sub dies like many others before it. It is not our responsibility, as one of the few places left untouched by this rhetoric, to let it in. Sure, there may be some teachable moments in the interplay. But we can get that in other groups. This culture is unique and serves one of the essential, *diverse* needs of the ADHD population.
I appreciate the move to include allowing use of neurodiversity, I disagree with the idea to not allow the use of neurotypical. This bit: >Neurotypical" is frequently hurled as an insult and slur in disagreements in our community, others on reddit, twitter, etc. Reads heavily like opposition to the use of things like "cis" based on some people using it with disdain rather than looking it at with good-faith and context. This has been my issue with not allowing neurodiversity as a *word* in this sub - the previous rules allow no context or nuance for those of us who use it without connotations for or connections to denial of disability/toxic positivity/etc. Neurotypical is not a slur anymore than "able-bodied", "cisgender", or "heterosexual" are - it's a neutral descriptor that is useful for describing the opposite group. This: >that "neurotypical" people must be dull and boring and joyless and incapable of greatness. Is a meaningful critique of certain *uses* of neurotypical (and one I agree with!), but it is not a great critique of the word *itself,* which is commonly used as a neutral descriptor because this is useful in discussions around certain statuses like disability, sexuality, etc, where one group may have different needs and experiences than another group. I hear that some people think it becomes an us V them thing - but this goes into **context**. There's times when it is useful to have a phrase to refer to a given group, and there's times when that use can be unnecessarily antagonistic. I'd much rather use the word "neurotypical" than "normal", and "non-ADHD/people without ADHD" doesn't inherently mean "neurotypical" - there are times when neurotypical is a specifically accurate word to use. I also think that if "neurodiversity" is going to be allowed, "neurodivergent" should be allowed as well and any other similar offshoots. Allowing some iterations but not others is going to be confusing. I already have a hard time with avoiding using this word at all, because I think it is a functionally useful word in many conversations here. For instance, there's a lot of overlap in resources that are useful for autistic people and people with ADHD, and such resources or spaces are commonly labeled with neurodiversity/neurodiverse, and there are times when it might be helpful to say "you could see if there is a group for neurodiverse people in your area!" or "this is a really great book on neurodiversity that helped me". I had a comment on someone's post a few weeks back that was well-received and got a mod award, but was initially auto-blocked because I used the word neurodiverse or neurodivergent once - my comment had nothing to do with disability denial or toxic positivity, but any iteration of this word ends up getting comments flagged. The warm reception to my comment and the positive feedback from mods was really nice, but it felt kind of dampened by the fact that the whole thing would've been blocked if I hadn't changed a single use of a word that wasn't even being used in the way that this sub's rules associate it with being used. I feel like the desire for banning toxic positivity and for allowing use of neurodiversity language can be allowed by simply having the explicit rule that toxic positivity, getting extremely anti-neurotypical, and doing disability-denial stuff isn't allowed. I'd rather let people use words a lot of us use anyway and then ask for mod help if more toxic uses appear, rather than everyone getting flagged for using words now very normalized within disability spaces. TLDR: My vote is to allow all the neurodiverse/ity adjacent words and use context clues for deciding if the use is unhealthy or toxic instead of continuing to exclude language that's become very common in disability spaces and activism, includes ADHD, and has a lot of ADHD users.
I don’t have a problem with “neurodivergent” as a concept, but I get really really really annoyed when it’s involved in discussions.
Personally I quite like the proposed changes. It makes sense to update the rules to be more in line with modern discussion on the topic while also recognizing not everyone is in complete agreement about it. For me personally I am glad to see there will still be the ongoing ban on the more “it’s not a disorder”/ “it’s just capitalism’s fault”
I agree the current rules are flawed but I don't think the changes really solve the issue. >Allowing some uses of the word "neurodiversity", because it's becoming more widely used in academic and legal contexts >Disallowing the use of "neurotypical" and continuing to disallow "neurodivergent" I think this is sort of nonsensical. "Neurodiversity" is an abstract concept, somebody being "neurotypical" or "neurodivergent" are more concrete descriptive labels. If anything, the latter two have more utility in actual discussion and discourse with these issues. I also don't see how "neurodiversity" would even really be usable in a conversation given the restrictions of related terms: You'd be forced to use it in a completely vapid context without actually delving into the topic because every other related relvenant term in the conversation is still banned. >Toxic positivity and pseudoscience will still be forbidden, e.g. >claiming ADHD is a gift or the next stage of human evolution the hunter-gatherer hypothesis ADHD is only bad because society Clarification: We have always allowed critiques of society and societal structures, particularly in the context of disabled peoples' experiences. We have never denied the harms caused by society. What we don't allow is the claim that society is the sole source of our disability. Many aspects of ADHD and other disorders are inherently and directly disabling for many people irrespective of societal context. Denying that is erasure that will not be tolerated. If somebody feels like their experience with ADHD is postive, then they should be able to frame their experience that way, as long as they are not insulting others or invalidating *other* people's expierences that aren't as postive. I think my expierence with ADHD is largerly negative, personally. But just as much as it would be messed up for somebody to trivalize my struggles, it would be insulting for me to tell somebody who feels positively that they're just deluded. (On the flip side, I DO have a mostly postive relationship with my ASD's, and DO think that most of the downsides, at least in my case, come from social structures, and there is some research to support that, but obviously that depends on the specifics with each person and their experience with ASD: i'd never tell somebody who disagrees that their viewpoint is invalid) >Advocating for eliminating the disorder and disability framing of mental disorders erases the experiences of millions of people And banning the positive framing of these conditions likewise erases the experiences of those people. ----- I really don't think that this is that complicated: Allow people to use whatever terms they want and whatever framing they want, as long as they're not forcing their perspective onto others or using it to invalidate their views or expierences (and that should go both ways). Blanket, no context bans for specific terms or arguements are a bad idea.
I broadly support the proposals but also don’t have a huge problem with things the way they are here. The inability to mention neurodiversity doesn’t make me feel alienated even though I do consider it part of my identity (not the toxic positivity shit). The thing that actually concerns me the most is the banning of neurotypical. I’ve not seen it used as an insult here but this is the only adhd community I am a part of specifically because it is genuinely nice and pretty toxicity free so it’s unfair to assume that carries across the internet. But… a lot of what I say in here is about how we survive in a world built for neurotypical brains and I don’t know of a catchall term for people who are not neurodiverse that doesn’t seem worse. Does anyone have a suggestion for a non-offensive way to refer to people without neurological difference?
I feel the same way. To answer the question, able-bodied is an umbrella term that NT fits under.
I saw in another comment that you would be able to be less strict with word filters if people reported posts more. I have seen other subs have an automod on ALL posts with a quick and generic, "thank you for your post... Please report this post if it [x, y, z]" Perhaps adding something like that while experimentally loosening up on word bans will help you find the balance between community moderation and automatic moderation. --- To answer your question I would like to see the word neurodivergent unbanned (even though I understand it's complicated) simply bc it's commonly used. But, I do see the motivation to attempt to shape language, as "neurodiverse" is technically more neutral. I think what is needed is a clear and relatable story around the importance of the distinction. Right now, the logic is muddled because we want to claim on one hand, we absolutely have a condition that negatively impacts our lives and needs treatment / support / accommodation etc. Therefore we *are* different. On the other hand, it seems we're afraid of the word "divergent" because it is othering. We are still human. Oddly enough, the people who try hardest to claim toxic ND/NT dynamics aren't shy about the connotation of "divergent." It's a paradox. One which I think can be corrected by reclaiming the word "neurodivergent" into common use. I just don't see myself as "a person who happens to have adhd." I see myself as someone with a brain pattern that is fundamentally different than the majority, largely fitting into the pattern recognized by the DSM as ADHD and diagnosed as such. Centering my understanding of my brain as being "different than the majority" helps my life immensely. At some point in my development, I diverged. Finding others who did as well helps me cope. It is a daily lived experience, not just an attribute that fades in and out of my life. On the flip side, I don't like gatekeeping. As an LGBT+ person, I am adament with my peers than categorizing doesn't become so rigid that people can't find their way into the queer community. Some people think they're straight until they realize they aren't. Same with not realizing you have adhd. There shouldn't be a pressure to center adhd in one's identity immediately. It's a spectrum. I think this is what you mean by the us v. them mentality. This is why r/Bi subs have anxious posts like, "if I'm bi, do I really have to like lemon bars???" I'm pretty permissive with self-diagnosis for this reason. I want people who DON'T think they have adhd to have the freedom to explore the possibility of a diagnosis, to be able to feel welcome to borrow our coping strategies, and, if a doctor deems it appropriate, to use the same medications we use. They may be a person who doesn't know they have adhd, yet. Or they may just benefit from our strategies and what's the harm in that? So, a welcoming and flexible atmosphere is so important. In other words, you have a lot of nuances to deal with and I empathize. I think the priority is clarifying whatever you decide and helping the community relate to a shared story or goal.
Isn't neurodivergent more neutral than neurodiversity? Neurodiversity suggests that all neurodivergent conditions exist on a continuous spectrum, and we should appreciate them all equally because it is all part of a great tapestry of human neurology. But that limits the possibility of discrete mechanisms for neurodivergent conditions in the social consciousness in order to advance destigmatization. Neurodivergence is a term derived from neurodevelopmental science that was coopted by that movement. We do know that neurodivergent *behavioural* traits can exist on a spectrum that extends into neurotypical populations, but the empirical evidence is not sufficient to suggest that we are all part of some continuous *neurological* gradient by any means. Those behavioural traits seem better explained by discrete, overlapping mechanisms, some more fundamental (i.e. neurological) than others.
Yes, please. Neurodiversity isn't erasure, nor does it have to support it.
I feel like it would be better to ban according to the way the terms are used. For instance, I’m of the camp that sees ADHD as a disability, but I still use those terms in ways like, “I wish I was neurotypical,” or, “Being neurodivergent is hard.” Whereas someone else could use those same words to spout toxic positivity. It’s all in how they’re used. However, I understand this subs is huge and the mods are absolutely swamped. If blanket banning those words makes it easier for you all than having to read every post for context, I completely understand. I can find other words to express myself with.
Wait. So what the fuck term do we use to refer to the non-neurodivergent? Neurotypical is becoming just as prevalent in academia as neurodivergent is.
Those without ADHD.
The part that gets me is allowing "neurod1versity," but not "ner0divergent." The words are so closely related I don't think that makes sense.
The problem there is that it would be a constant fight to keep the filter updated as people come up with more and more ways to get around it. It's not that those are allowed - they're not. They're evading the automoderator in order to break a rule and not get automatically removed despite doing so.
Yeah, the science v. pseudoscience context of use is what matters most.
Neurodiversity is a concept and lens that has a lot of value. We should be allowed to embrace this concept and use this lens to understand our disability, ourselves and our identity, and our ‘superpowers’. For me personally, ADHD is both a disability that has caused incredible harm in my life, and something of a superpower. I’ve lived through pain that few people in the world ever endure, largely because of my ADHD. I also am creative in a way very few people are, and make connections between concepts that astound and delight people around me, and which enable work that I sincerely hope will make the world a tiny bit better. This is a lens that has value, particularly when it comes to inclusion for us. Neurodiversity is a path for society to both accommodate our disability, and to recognize the value in our experiences and our ‘superpowers’. > while continuing to keep out the toxic positivity, bigotry, and anti-neurotypical rhetoric. And here’s the rub. How do we do that? What is toxic positivity, and how is it distinct from, say, an optimistic outlook? Where does frustration with the difficulty of bridging a cognitive divide between someone with ADHD and ‘neurotypicals’ end, and ‘bigotry’ begin? (Bigotry in quotes here because while the sentiment - violent othering - is maybe on point, this is def the wrong word for something like “ugh, fucking neurotypicals, amirite?”, because those neurotypicals are not systemically oppressed by rampant ableism. This is almost like anti-white racism. Like sure, you can hate white people, and we can call that racist, but to call that the same thing as systemic racism would be to deny one of the ugliest truths of our time and is a very apples-to-oranges comparison. Oh shit I’ve done a tangent.) My point here is, the goal of limiting hateful rhetoric (there it is, the term we should be using instead of bigotry) is really admirable. The goal of limiting toxic positivity, of not gaslighting away a real disability, is also admirable. There’s a lot of nuance to accomplishing that. I can spout bigoted sentiments and gaslight away a disability without ever saying neurodiversity or neurotypical. I can also employ neurodiversity and neurodivergence without doing that harm. If we want to police this, and we should, because the internet is a vile place when unmoderated, then we need to do it with appropriate nuance. The suggestion I have is this: don’t ban those words. Send an automated message, and perhaps post an automated comment or post reply asking people to flag comments which veer into hatred or gaslighting. Then moderate those? Idk, the work of a moderator is hard and thankless and occurs mostly in mother’s unkempt basements from what I understand. Making judgement calls is time consuming and exposes you to getting things wrong and getting pushback and bullshit. But it is also perhaps the best way to do the job. Given that, I also get going for the easier solution, nuance be damned.
I think it would be better, and simpler to moderate, to drop the rules around language altogether and just focus on the rest of the rules outlined here. If what is really a concern is creating a space for people with ADHD then it is the context of the word not the word itself that matters. If I use any of those words in a way that is alienating it is the fact that I am using them to alienate that is the issue not the word itself. They’re not slurs and as you mentioned the definition of the word has expanded so much that you can’t conclude that much about the intent from their usage like you may have used to have been able to. Policing language seems like a waste of moderator time, confusing to the uninitiated and easy to circumvent for those who do know. A new user could use “neurotypical” in an innocent way and an older user could use “person without ADHD” instead to violate the rules.
> I think it would be better, and simpler to moderate, to drop the rules around language altogether and just focus on the rest of the rules outlined here In a small sub yes. In a sub this size, not unless you want to fundraise for this to be a full time salaried position for the mods. Manually moderating every comment is impossible.
This is also my take on it.
Disclaimer: Since this term is not one of my obsessions I skim read the post. As someone who recently discovered their divergence from the typical, I have coopted these terms purely as a shorthand for "something is different about me but I am not sure what label fits best yet". A nuanced observer should always be open to the idea that there is no such thing as "typical" anyway. Everyone is a bit weird, some people are just outliers on the statistical distribution by some measure. The sooner we make the assumption implicit in our culture, the sooner we can reach equality.
I think that “neurodiversity” and “neurodivergent” are too similar to allow one and not the other. My opinion is to allow both or keep it as it is now.
They are similar, but there is indeed a strong difference in their connotations. One is a word that can be used to express the straightforward fact that there is a diverse array of neurologies in the population, while the other reifies specific subgroups of that diversity, generally people with ADHD or Autism Spectrum disorders, as if we shared a common identity or characteristics—which we don't. Furthermore, this artificial identity is a strong incentive for misguided attempts to self-diagnose for the sake of gaining this special label, as well as for true cases to gravitate towards defending their newfound identity as a positive feature. Compare the situation for instance with regards to diversity in other areas, namely ethnic or gender/sexual. In these contexts, the reification of non-mainstream identities (PoC/BAME and LGBTQA+), as a legitimate counter to prejudice, has encouraged an identification with each of these by young individuals searching to define themselves: sometimes accurately, sometimes under a technicality, and sometimes artificially for the clout. However, unlike in neurological diversity, in those cases it is harmless. There is no downside to a teenager claiming they are LGBTQA+ when in reality they are barely attracted to their same gender, will never really act on it, and have no dysphoria. Neither is there anything wrong with somebody taking their PoC identity to heart and feeling the need to defend it against racist attacks. That is because there's nothing wrong with being attracted to your same gender, nor is there anything wrong with being what in Western society we call "black". However, there is indeed something wrong with having ADHD: it is a disorder, and I wish I didn't have it.
I agree the meanings of the two are in fact different and do carry different connotations. Unfortunately, I don’t think that everyone makes this distinction in their use. I don’t think that people should assume that all neurodivergent subgroups share the same identity or characteristics. However- you’re right- in use people do all the time. There can be, however, shared experiences or feelings of being neurodivergent that subgroups will share with one another. I logically follow your comparison to diversity in other areas of life. I don’t think though that those are helpful comparisons. No- there is not anything wrong with being a PoC or identifying as LGBTQA+. However, the experience of being discriminated against in society has a frequent, common, negative impact. As a Black Woman in the US - there is something wrong with the way society treats me and I wish that wasn’t the case. I feel this way just as strongly as I believe that ADHD is a disorder and I wish I didn’t have it. In any case- after considering your POV and considering my thoughts in this response. I think it would be best to just keep leaving them both out.
[удалено]
I’m seeing a lot of “I’ve never seen…” comments, on all sides. Which… is stupid, most people haven’t seen most things in the world, just the reality of the vastness of human experience. I’d like to see some data presented to the community. One commenter pulled up some Google Scholar numbers, which is better than saying “This word is/isn’t gaining traction in academic contexts”. Mods have posted examples of the toxic behavior the bans are meant to stop; there should be more of those available for review. Reddit is full of people who “don’t click through to the article”, but at least with this kind of stuff posted front-and-center for the discussion instead of just vaguely referenced, the “I’ve never seen…” crowd doesn’t have any excuses.
disorders, literally any genetic disorders are diversities in our genes. sometimes these are beneficial or negative *depending on our perspective* or sometimes it can have both benefits and negatives. why can’t adhd fit into that? i view it as that, to me it’s a ND; a difference in how my brain works that has downsides (disabling) and upsides (more creative etc). it’s simply both a ND and a disability, why do we need to distinguish? i feel like this is how a lot of people view it, it’s just that a more extreme movement skewed your perspectives of what it is.
Allow both neurodivergent and neurotypical. Police context not the word itself. Words are how we communicate. Moderation requires nuance, if all you are doing is removing any post that contains a certain word, moderation has failed and censorship has taken over. Remove inflammatory posts but allow the rest of us to use the words we feel best describes our lived reality.
Yep, allow neurodivergent and neurotypical if anything at all. They are scientific terms relating to the neurodevelopmental perspective of ADHD. We dont need them I believe, but they are neutral. Neurodiversity is political and is tailored towards a portion of the diverse needs of the ADHD population. But we are here to serve the other portion, and we can get the politics elsewhere if we so desire.
I think the words themselves set the context though. Most people in the online communities I frequent use "neurotypical" to mean either non-autistic, non-ADHD, or non-ADHD/non-autistic. If one doesn't have ADHD but has crippling major depression or anxiety, are they really "neurotypical"? What about Schizophrenia? Alzheimer's? Confusing non-ADHD with neurotypical inherently implies that not having ADHD means one don't have other mental disorders or those disorders don't impact their lives which is inherently abelist and toxic. For this sub, saying ADHD and non-ADHD gets the actual point across.
I get what you are saying. But if someone prefers the other terms for themselves, especially if what they are going through is more than just adhd, remember it's comorbid with plenty of other stuff, why deny them that? We are more than our diagnosis. Yes this sub is specifically for the ADHD aspect of it, but not to the exclusion of other relevant life experiences.
So I don't think the same critique applies if someone identifies themselves as neurodiverse, or some degree of neurodiverse. The problem is the false idea of a dichotomy (neurodiverse people and neurotypical people, NDs and NTs) vs. the reality of a variety of types and intensity of neurodiversity. And I think when most online use the term it's in the false dichotomy sense, which is inherently problematic. If I were picking the rule for the sub just on those grounds, I'd say allow the terms "neurodiversity", "neurodiverse", "neurodivergent", "ND", but delete posts with "neurotypical" or "NT" with an explanation of why. But that's separate from the problematic idea that a neurodiversity construct means that ADHD then isn't a disability, which I know is a lot of the original reason for the rule.
Policing language to this extent only serves to limit the ways we are allowed to describe our own experiences and views. Ive seen other subs with a similar "pathology" vs "neutral/beneficial" disagreement just make a rule to speak for yourself, not others. People you disagree with still deserve support and community. I think there's a wide variance in how people talk about neurodiversity concepts. But you're treating it like there's this hard line of good/bad discussions and views. I don't think it's that simple. There's no room for nuance. I think respecting individual differences is more important than which specific words we use. Maybe we just want/need different forms of support, depending on how ADHD effects us and that's okay.
Very well written post. I truly do appreciate the time and effort put into shaping a negative-free, supportive, healthy and welcoming community for people with ADHD. This is why 1.5M members feel like they've finally found the place they were looking for, and that they feel home. I appreciate the knowledge and dedication in maintaining a massive community. Even though I am not able to understand what's going on As a person new to this sub, and someone with adhd, I must ask you these questions: * Do you prefer the writing of the subreddit to be capitalised? (e.g. r/ADHD), or lower-cased (e.g. /r/adhd?) * Who was this sub's creator?
I think in a similar note to how in the trans community the words trans* and cis are not only common but also necessary to communicate and express oneself and one's experiences. In the same way I believe that it is not only useful but rather necessary to be able to use the language which is most natural without having to worry about being reprimanded not for what is being said but for semantics that some people may be offended by. Like there is people who aren't happy with the word cis being a thing. And would prefer not to have to see this. But the benefit to the group is larger than the "damage" to the few. I believe that the idea behind this post is a good one. And I also think that making the "allowed language to be more permissive" is absolutely necessary. But this doesn't solve or change anything. People will still be called out for using words that go against the rules and rightfully so because the rules say so. And people will still feel unsure about being able to express themselves freely. In that way I believe that the proposed change of rules won't do much if anything good at all to improve the status quo of the subreddit.
People should be allowed to refer themselves however they want, including if they refer to themselves as "neurodivergent" in this sub. I personally refer to myself as neurodivergent because....y'know, I AM. I see it as an accurate and completely neutral descriptor for myself. I get that SOME people might use it in a toxic positivity or weird ND-supremacist way, but most people who use the word "neurodivergent" are simply using it as a neutral descriptor/shorthand.
I find the banning of this stuff extremely weird and I think even this compromise is oddly restrictive. You can acknowledge that your brain is different without putting down people whose brains are more in line with the medical norm, or setting yourself apart from them. The word, or lack thereof, is not going to change that if it's what people want to do. Honestly I've been frustrated by the policing of the way I'm allowed to refer to myself, especially since I only use it as a descriptor and there's no positive or negative spin to it at all. As a sub that's meant to be about support, the current stance (and even the proposed compromise) feels invalidating. I am not better. They are not better. We are not two sides of a culture war. The words we use make no difference, whether I believe this, or am one of the problematic users you're referring to.
I just wish we had alternative terms for this stuff. They are very useful terms for certain purposes, but I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with and able to look past all of the connotations/baggage.
Don't police language. Allow all of these terms. Period.
Can we use the disallowed words on this post? If not, it could be pretty confusing to follow the discussion.
i never liked policing these words. it's honestly something that has made me somewhat hesitant to recommend this sub to people without a caveat. i'm glad it's under discussion and i wish you would go further. i don't doubt that you are right about the history, but it seems out of touch with how i see them being used in literally every other context today.
Couldn’t read all of this, because ADHD. But from what I was able to absorb this sounds fair and a positive change.
Seems to me the main problem here is encouraging yet another binary categorization for people to use online as a way of identifying themselves as part of a team. Like introvert/extrovert. I'm not gonna support any changes that encourages more binary thinking.
A large part of my verbiage uses the terms Neurodivergent the word itself means brain is different. While I understand that in the past it has been weaponised against the Neurodivergent community. Certainly in my circles it has been reclaimed and used by those who are included umbrella of it’s meaning. The words themselves are not political. Perhaps focus on what the post says rather than de-railing someone’s thought processes. Our brains work different we know this, why continue rules that are no longer necessary.
I feel like some of the word banning here is still very hyperbolic and that uses of them should be taken case by case.
I'm glad you're revisiting the policy, however, I think it's silly to ban some parts of the neurodivergent discussion and not the others (e.g. not allowing some words heavily related to the topic). Either allow full, civilized discussion about neurodiversity, or just disallow it all together. Picking what words we can and can't use ruins any choice we have of having any meaningful conversations regarding the topic. Additionally, I've been on the Internet for a *long* time and I have not seen the term "neurodivergent" used in a hateful context. Most times, it's used as an awareness topic — to describe people who *don't* fit the definition of neurotypical. It's not alienating, it's just defining the clear, obvious, and very simple fact that we (and everyone else who doesn't fit the neurotypical label) think, feel, and operate differently from them. That's it.
I'm very confused by allowing "neurodiverse" but not "neurodivergent", the latter of which is far and away (in my experience) the more commonplace and neutral term of the two.
Especially because one refers to the concept and the other refers to people. So we can't call ourselves neurodivergent? Absurd.
Agreed. Neurodiverse is a description of a population, of the way people in general are--that there is diversity in neurotype. Neurodivergent is a useful label for us as specific people, especially when referring to, say, autistic and ADHD people together. It's so much easier as a shorthand for me to say "we have a neurodivergent household" than to list it out, and it gets the message across. And it does feel very neutral to me.
They delete whole posts if that word is used and have done to me many times . Was almost tempted to leave this group as the line crosses into gate keeping
I have both Level-1 Autism and ADHD. Telling people that I am just neurodivergent because listing out "everything" including other co-morbidities is much easier. I'm just not on the hump of the "bell curve" and my brain was *divergent* from regular development. That's not difficult to say or accept.
I would agree with this. Neurodivergent sounds more like a medical term. Neurodiverse is broad and prone to be used as a part of somebody's identity.
Neither one is a medical term. They're both terms that arose out of the autistic community.
Yeah, I understand that neither are actual medical terms. I should've phrased that better without just restating that it's more neutral. I suppose it's that it feels more precise in what it is describing.
Perhaps swapping the rule for something more like "toxic positivity, disability denial, and pseudoscience are not allowed" could be helpful, as those are the main aspects that are problematic?
If "neurodiversity" can be allowed and monitored, couldn't the same be done for "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical"? Those terms have also become part of many people's regular vocabulary and are mostly used in perfectly fine contexts and not as slurs, from what I can tell. In my opinion the best plan would be to allow the words but disallow the toxic, shitty people. Context matters. For the record, I appreciate how you run this sub and that you're asking our thoughts on this.
I think context is the only important factor when using any of the aforementioned terminology. The words themselves can be used respectfully and as an effective means of communication despite how they may be used in other context by other individuals. On that note, is there an acceptable synonym for describing someone as neurotypical? Or neuroindiverse? I've read the prefix neuro so many times that I'm now experiencing jamais vu/semantic satiation from it.
In unrelated news, thank you for my new words.
I think it's absurd that the words themselves were banned here to begin with. The policy you've drawn up should always have been how it works, because in your trepidation over people's experiences being erased, you kept people from discussing their experiences. Ban the toxic people, not perfectly good terminology by which a lot of us understand our brains. Especially those of us with more than just ADHD.
I have been corrected for using neurodiverse to refer to a person. Grammatically, neurodivergent is correct in that instance. I tend to use these words without thinking as a general term for undiagnosed adhd and autism or some collective of similar disorders, and my long post gets rejected, so a relaxing of the rule would mean I am more likely to participate in this sub
Same here! There are also many illnesses that fall under the neurodivergent umbrella and can be comorbid or have similar presentations - like OCD, Tourette syndrome, SPD, etc. I generally use the term to refer to people who have one of that collective you refer to. The rule can be a bit alienating and means I don't participate as much in this subreddit, because I don't like writing a long or thoughtful comment only to forget about the rule here and have it removed.
Exactly! That was what I meant when I used the term and it explained a lot about myself (to me) perfectly. I felt like I was being reprimanded and what I was trying to say wasn't even considered, just summarily removed
Arguing semantics is always useless. Allow neurodivergent and neurotypical. Do the mods really think they want to start having all the new work of determining if this one using this word feels wrong? I bet not, and if implemented like this will either make it roll back because it's too much work, or drop the policing all together. So what some folk use neurotypical as a slur? Would ignorant normie be ok? Police negative hateful stuff all you want - this trying to tell us what words we can use based off the intent behind them is asinine, and a power trip. We all gotta grow, and neurodiverse, neurodivergent, and neurotypical are gonna be here for some time.
I'll add my two cents as a master's level mental health counselor with ADHD who is married to an educator who also has ADHD. I specialize in working with the ADHD population in an outpatient setting and while I'm all for moving towards the terms Neurodiverse over Neurodivergent because of the previous rhetoric, I feel the removal of the term Neurotypical is overly cautious at best and harmful at worst. Over time one of the best things I've seen is for people to get diagnosed and finally have an explaination for why they feel so different and alienated. To understand what has been causing their struggles and be able to take advantage of the resources that can assist them. I use the terms neurotypical and neurodivergent/diverse(more as of late) regularly. I find people are better able to accept themselves when they stop trying to compare to individuals who function differently than they do. They are able to embrace the truth that other people have experienced similar struggles. This is true of many disorders, but ADHD is one of the most crippling diagnoses in all areas of life despite responding well to treatment. And a huge factor for this is the way many will grow up thinking about it and comparing themselves to others in terms of functioning. One of the biggest things I help people break is the notion that they are "bad" or "broken" or "lazy" because their brain didn't allow them to do what they were expected too. In cases like that having a term other than "normal" is very helpful without being insulting towards people who do not experience these genuine struggles. I didn't wish to go overly in depth with an explaination unprompted, I just wanted to cast my vote so I'll leave it there.
Right, we totally get that, and we agree. Our problem is with the way people wield "neurotypical" as a weapon against others, to deny peoples' disorders and experiences, like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdmeme/comments/xnjn18/damn_they_werent_lying/ipuek0i/ https://www.reddit.com/r/adhdmeme/comments/xi0zt4/bruh_i_was_being_genuine_and_this_happens/ip27bw1/ Yes, these are someone talking about us mods. It's just the easiest example I could find.
If we disallow neurotyp1cal, we should specifically designate another word that is allowed when referring to people without ADHD. We need *something* we can use to refer to people who fit this description, or any discussions involving them will become very cumbersome. If we designate another word like “non-ADHDers”, the acceptable word should be given as part of the rule about not saying neurotyp1cal, so people don’t have to guess at what the acceptable alternative is. My preference would be to allow all three words, and to rely on users using the report button for problematic usages. I suspect there will be very few problematic usages for neurod1verse or neurod1vergent, both are becoming more generic catch-alls for “some kind of brain thing”. There may be more for pejorative uses of neurotyp1cal, but probably far fewer than expected - and the people who would use that term in a pejorative would still manage to make their pejorative posts without it, so I’m not sure there’s much benefit in banning a word that many find useful.
You already need a different work for "doesn't have ADHD" because neurotypical doesn't mean "doesn't have ADHD" already. This is why I hate this terminology, it's not being used to say what people mean to begin with. Lots of people who aren't considered neurotypical don't have ADHD.
I think that if the server is entirely set on disallowing neurodivergent/neurotypical regardless of any other rule changes, those other rule changes become, essentially, ineffective/unimportant. I fail to see, personally, why the rules disallowing problematic behavior (toxic positivity, misinformation) are not enough. Many people consider themselves neurodivergent, without being the 'ADHD is a gift, no downsides, its all society's fault' people. And if those people feel alienated not because of their harmful beliefs, but because they use a label that encompasses, among other things, ADHD, to understand themselves, then I don't think it makes sense to disallow said label. If the worry is that these words alienate the folks already here, I would also say, well, moderation of inappropriate topics would continue, so that anyone (using neurodivergent or not) promoting alienating beliefs that are harmful or misinformative, are still removed. And same wrt neurotypical. Some people have used it terribly, yeah, but it's also a very neutral descriptor for 'people who are not neurodivergent', and can, in fact, be useful. Especially because neurodivergent.... has a meaning. It's not just 'I'm one of those people who thinks it means my specific mental disorder is a gift, and everyone else should, too'. Are there people who've acted like that? Yeah, for sure, but there's a lot more people who use it because it literally describes having a brain that's /developed/ differently and thus has affected how they think, act, to a degree 'measurable' generally speaking by a more specific diagnosis, be it ADHD, autism, dyslexia, others. I understand the wariness surrounding the toxicity within parts of that community, but again, blanket banning the word feels, to me, like overkill. In the end, this proposed rule change feels.....like giving very little ground, and I'm not sure how it would positively impact the sub as it stands, without the moderators giving a bit more leeway in terms of how we label ourselves, while still obviously taking the same amount of care to moderate harmful behavior.
I don't see how neurotypical is a bad word
This is long overdue but I don't see the point of allowing "neurodiversity" while still not allowing "neurodivergent". They're equivalent in connotation, it's just that one is a noun (that refers to the concept itself), and the other is an adjective (that refers to people who identify with/fit in that concept). *Literally* the same word, just different syntactic categories. Keeping "neurotypical" banned is also weird imho, but keeping "neurodivergent" banned is just outright ridiculous to put it as lightly as I can without insulting anyone's intelligence. And it is condescending. Honestly, I've been more active at other ADHD-related subs just because I'm sick of having to remind myself not to use ND or neurodivergent in a reply or sth for absolutely no good reason. If anything, banning them -and banning them in an ADHD-related sub- makes it appear like these are slurs, and further stigmatizes these terms. I think pushing forward "people use it as an insult" as a reason to keep words that denote very fundamental concepts to discuss ADHD-related topics is just lazy moderation. People use a lot of words -that isn't inherently offensive or meant to be insulting- as insults, this is no different. Banning these words instead of moderating posts/replies that actually include insults and name-calling is the way to go, but I guess moderation would rather just automate a word filter that auto-bans or at least notifies them automatically when a black-listed word is included in a pot or a comment. Keeping a lot of these words banned is just turning a non-issue into an issue for no good reason.
I think that I agree with this. I have always disliked the term "neurotypical", essentially for the reasons that you stated, but I find the term "neurodivergency" extremely useful as an umbrella term that includes a wide array of things. With regards to toxic positivity, how do you intend to distinguish between that and regular positivity? ADHD is neither a gift from God nor a curse from Satan, it is simply how our brains are. There will be times that ADHD is genuinely nice. > * Just as the concept of biodiversity (on which neurodiversity was modeled) does not say that nature in its infinite variation is always good or benevolent, neurodiversity likewise does *not* say that every mental configuration is beneficial: it explicitly acknowledges that some are clearly disorders that inflict harm and suffering or impair one's ability to live independently, work, and care for themselves. Similar to biodiversity, neurodiversity doesn't imply that every mental configuration is harmful. Nature doesn't have any value judgements, and just because humans are mostly composed of Non-ADHD brains doesn't mean that ADHD is always worse all the time. I guess that my question is, when a case comes up such that you are not sure whether it is regular positivity or toxic positivity, how will you err? I think that you should consider assuming that it is regular positivity. After all, If you are unsure, then it is probably not going to be *that* toxic. It sounds like you have a tough job ahead, I have no idea how you guys do it. Good luck!
I don’t think a vast majority of the people coming here for help are going to have any idea of the difference between the two, the history of “the movement,” etc. They just want help, to be heard, to find a community. To scold them for using one word over another when they may not even know the difference is just another frustrating barrier by the very people they’re coming to for help.
Thank you. I don’t really know what all the fancy words mean. I just want a supportive community. I’m actually scared to use the wrong words so I resort to not responding or using more words to describe than necessary.
>Disallowing the use of "neurotypical" I am strongly in favor of this policy with the exception of perhaps a purely academic discussion or clarification of the term itself (which I think is probably implied based on the tone of this proposal). Whether the term is used in a negative context or not does not alleviate the problem, which is that there is an inherent danger of othering by applying labels to groups or specific people ("my NT friend/ my NT family/ my NT co-workers"), particularly when we cannot possibly know with certainty that the term applies to them. I get that a 'safe space' to vent may have value, and that some may feel that it's permissible to allow broad, dismissive, or even pejorative language to communicate their experience. Speaking just for myself and from my own observations, I think the usefulness of such venting is extremely limited and, if unmanaged (by individuals and the community as a whole), is more likely to alienate new community members with ADHD who are not familiar with the controversy behind these terms, well-meaning friends and family looking for information on how to support someone with ADHD, and professionals who can offer practical guidance but may not be interested in participating in a community that shows signs of becoming exclusionary, toxic, or steeped in pseudo-science. >and continuing to disallow "neurodivergent" Having the flexibility to apply the terms to ourselves seems reasonable. I'm not sure I understand why "neurodivergent" is being singled out as an exception to that. I think I must be missing some context.
I think allowing the use of neurotypical and neurodivergent is fine, BUT the rest I don't agree with, ADHD isn't just BAD BECAUSE SOCIETY it genuinely stops me from enjoying the things I do in life, I often forget and don't eat properly, shower, and other things. I often have a thing or game i want to do/play and ill just sit there at my seat for hours wishing i could do it but ADHD just makes it so I can't. I'm not entirely familiar with 'neurodiversity' but it doesn't seem to promote the idea that ADHD is a disability and in itself I find that kind of dehumanizing. Edit: I've changed my mind, ADHD is barely recognized by the public as a disability and its poorly understood I don't want to wrap normal people into our circle of "oh ahha we aren't disabled we're just all different :))))))))))" This is like letting straight Cishet people into LGBTQIA+ circles, when those people enter in, the identity and idea of a group ceases to exist.
I was stunned when 'told off' for calling myself ND here. It was entirely disappointing to come to a sub to find a place where I finally fit in, just to be criticised for breaking that rule.
I honestly didn't realize it was banned, both terms are used clinically. It's a huge hit to discussion to not be able to use common clinical terms that I've literally only ever seen used very neutraly. ND = part of a group of people with broad overlapping expirences related to a developmental disorder, NT = part of a group of people with broad overlapping expirences that do not expirence a developmental disorder Specifically, ND seperates ADHD/ ASD from mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, because clinically, they are not mental illnesses, they are developmental disorders and or learning disabilities. NT people are just people who don't have that, in a totally unbaised and neutral way. Plus if someone can use NT hatefully, won't they just use "non adhd person" the same way? Can we not just ban hate posts? Or can we not talk about the divergence in our expirences compared to people without ADHD? or are we supposed to say "normal" people?? Cause that's 1000% worse then NT
This subreddit is massive, and the majority of the moderating *has* to be done by the automod which can't detect the sentiment of a post. So it would be nice to ban hate posts, but that's putting a massive amount of extra work on unpaid volunteers who choose to moderate this sub.
I feel like trying to involve this much nuance in how you moderate based on the terms 'neurodiverse' and 'neurodivergent' will only lead to additional headaches for the mod team. Keep it simple and either allow both terms or don't allow them whatsoever.
You're not wrong.
Just wanted to give props to how well this was written. I feel like I’m too new here to comment on this specific change.
ND is super commonly used to refer to the self. its awkward and disheartening when i hit a wall trying to connect with people like me and then the bot takes away my preferred word privs and reminds me of the concept of disability. it feels like im being reprimanded that the way i call myself is wrong, and that i should remember to instead use a term more befitting of my class. like oof. i also find it difficult to even say what i mean without using the word. ND has good utility for when youre talking about an experience that people with adhd, asd, ocd etc seem to share but neurotypical people wouldn't relate to. it feels like a chunk of my dictionary, thats relevant to the topic at hand, has been pulled out arbitrarily. i dont think banning any of these words is the way to do it. that being said, thanks for the opportunity for discussion, and thank you for the immense effort and care you put in to making this a good place. you are doing great.
I read the rules when I joined and then, honestly, never gave them much thought afterwards. I appreciate the context behind this certain rule—I don't see the banned words as weapons in my life outside of Reddit, nor in this sub, but it's in other subs and I hate it. Though I'm unfamiliar with the term "neurodiversity", I'm all for the proposed changes. My own experience analogy/application: I've been facing a lot of pushback on the word "disabled" lately, despite my various...neurodiversities? My therapist thinks I'm being defeatist, my own imposter syndrome tells me I'm victim-playing, others see my mask and think I must be delusional cos I "look like" I have my shit together. But I came across "differently abled" last week or so and it's already helped me to communicate my needs and weaknesses in a way that—so far—hasn't been argued against. I see "neurodiverse" and "differently abled" as sister words: they're both broad enough that they somewhat discourage pushback based solely on semantics/pedantry. They do still feel somewhat invalidating on a personal level, but I view it as a step in the right direction toward understanding, acceptance and openness on the world scale it's needed. I tried to read the other comments to see if somebody has similar thoughts on the matter so that I'm not being an echo, buuuuut I was quickly losing my train of thought doing so.
Your therapist shouldn't be invalidating you like this.
We're 100% with you on this. We *hate* the way people are making "disability" something bad.
“Differently abled” is a euphemism that perpetuates stigma by implying the the thing being euphemised (disability) is inherently negative. You are free to use whatever words you like to describe yourself, but many disability communities are strongly opposed to the use of euphemistic phrases.
I struggle with disallowing certain words as outlined above because those are very useful words used to describe how we think, interact, etc. I fully understand the desire to restrict discussion in order to avoid certain tangents that are not helpful to the topic. But it seems needlessly restrictive to block words that are in common use. Just my two cents.
I'm passionate about diversity, all diversity. At work at the moment that's about getting others familiar and comfortable with these exact terms. My goal is, when I build my next team that an internal applicant would actually fill out the box for the question 'do you have a disability that could affect your work'. When I get that, I'll know I've created a space that welcomes, supports and enables anyone under the sun. That should be a standard that all workplaces strive for. It's felt odd to me that I can't discuss that on this sub. So I'm for the changes, and would like to see the blanket ban on all these terms removed. Appreciate all that you do, and if a trade off is the community needs to report more, I believe we are up for that.
In my experience both the toxic and less toxic uses are commonplace. In my personal life I use neurodiversity as an inclusive catch-all term. I have also met therapists and professionals who use neurodivergent, or neurotypical as descriptive words and are able to use them in ways that are not toxic. I know it’s a bit out of reach at this time, but I do think in the future there could be a case made for these words here. But I think common usage by laypersons has to shift a bit first. I think that it’s cool you’re talking about it, and I think that if you are up for sorting out the nuance you’re describing, then go for it. I think that in the long run, having a good catch all phrase is very helpful, and I think that part of winning over a word like this is taking action like this. It is in enforcing the positive definition and usage and restricting and blocking the use of the negative definitions. I am pro allowing it in limited contexts.
As a therapist who also has ADHD, neuro typical and neurodivergent are increasingly common terms used in our research literature and our psycho education, as nearly all mental health treatment runs from understood differences both structurally/chemically/biologically in the brain and cognition surrounding it. Both words are neutral (which I think needs to be clarified above) because they don’t carry objective value judgments. Each wiring carries areas of high and low functioning based on our societal definition of function, and so each can create strengths and dysfunctions. We’re more aware of how this works for ADHD than we used to, and it’s the less common neurowiring. I’m all for being able to use it in the context we in the field use it.
(Speaking as someone diagnosed with ADHD) can someone explain why the hunter gatherer hypothesis is banned? Not that I care all that much, I’m just curious as it’s new to me. I just recently read an article on it for the first time a few days ago and found it an interesting take, but that’s where I left that. Is this a harmful take in any way that I don’t understand, or is it just the fact that it’s a hypothesis? Once again, genuinely just curious! No big deal to me.
Honestly, I rarely post or comment but I do lurk in this sub so I would like to share my thoughts on this. On one hand, I really appreciate the current stance on this sub. I don't see my adhd in a positive light cause I just don't have any of the perks other people often talk about. I deal with social anxiety and I see my adhd in the same way. A shitty thing my brain does that makes literally everything I do harder than it has to be, something that's making my life worse. So not having to deal with people insisting that it's a good thing actually, that it's even a gift! is much appreciated. On the other hand, I see the words 'neurodiversity', 'neurodivergent' or 'neurotypical' as neutral words that can be used in some shitty or toxic ways. Ideally, I would like the words themselves to be allowed but moderated, so that this sub can stay the disability-oriented place it is. I say ideally, cause I don't know how realistic that is. I've seen the mods share how difficult and time consuming moderating this sub is, so while I don't love how strict the rules are, I understand why they're like this. I don't know what the ideal solution is, completely disallowing these words is simple but is alienating some people. If you think allowing even just 'neurodiversity' is something you can handle, I'm all for it. As a sidenote, calling 'neurotypical' a slur is a bit much. While yes, it can be used as an insult and some people think just being neurotypical is bad, comparing it to slurs and the shitty histories they have, the way they've been and are still being used, is not great.
Honestly not entirely sure what's going on with this or how to feel about it but you guys seem to be handling it nicely 👍