Except neurodivergence is a scientific concept. It's been being studied and discussed in the social sciences for like 20 years now. And unironically implying that someone isn't disabled because you can't see their disability is in fact ableist. My son literally gets services from the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities for his ADHD and Autism. He's legally considered disabled. But you would never know he has a disability looking at him.
care to show me some references claiming the scientific validity of calling some people neurotypical and some others not?
i was mainly talking about ADHD not autism.
I am not saying that there are no invisible disabilities. people might be suffering from issues for which they need help. People have to treated with care and compassion they require.
one doesn't have to go into pseudo scientific neurodivergence/typical ideas - which implies the existence of two kinds of people (typical and divergent) to understand that.
stand by my claim that having a bit of ADHD doesn't make you disabled.
Neurodivergence is more a sociopolitical movement where scientific facts are but one relevant factor. The problem is working with a relatively reductive view of disability and neurodivergence as two binaries. Either you are or you aren't. The reality is more a layering of multiple spectra of diffrerent qualities/tensions. ADHD involves some of these qualities/tensions differently than autism, but it's a useful category. A first step to understanding this is looking at neurodivergence in context of the social model of disability:
I also saw this interesting article looking at the risks/limitations of the social model of disability for neurodivergence. It's an opinion, but a nuanced one.
Except neurodivergence is a scientific concept. It's been being studied and discussed in the social sciences for like 20 years now. And unironically implying that someone isn't disabled because you can't see their disability is in fact ableist. My son literally gets services from the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities for his ADHD and Autism. He's legally considered disabled. But you would never know he has a disability looking at him.
care to show me some references claiming the scientific validity of calling some people neurotypical and some others not?
i was mainly talking about ADHD not autism.
I am not saying that there are no invisible disabilities. people might be suffering from issues for which they need help. People have to treated with care and compassion they require. one doesn't have to go into pseudo scientific neurodivergence/typical ideas - which implies the existence of two kinds of people (typical and divergent) to understand that.
stand by my claim that having a bit of ADHD doesn't make you disabled.
Neurodivergence is more a sociopolitical movement where scientific facts are but one relevant factor. The problem is working with a relatively reductive view of disability and neurodivergence as two binaries. Either you are or you aren't. The reality is more a layering of multiple spectra of diffrerent qualities/tensions. ADHD involves some of these qualities/tensions differently than autism, but it's a useful category. A first step to understanding this is looking at neurodivergence in context of the social model of disability:
https://www.disabilitywales.org/neurodiversity-and-the-social-model-of-disability/
I also saw this interesting article looking at the risks/limitations of the social model of disability for neurodivergence. It's an opinion, but a nuanced one.
https://www.autisticscholar.com/social-model-neurodiversity/