neurodiversity discourse has failed us by bolstering the idea that diagnosis and a pathology framework are objectively true, correct, and helpful. it’s failed us by convincing people that this framework is itself correct and simply being carried out by people who don’t carry it out perfectly, instead of making us question the validity of the framework itself, one which has been constructed in service of capitalism, bioessentialism, and binary modes of thinking.
i just saw a post talking about visual phenomena common in autistic people because of neural excitability (phenomena which, for context, is common to literally all people - floaters, visual noise, phosphenes, glare/rays around lights, etc.) and while it was a fun read that could be informative or simply interesting, the way it’s been culturally contextualised within the last few years means that everyone in the comments was like “wow I had no idea this wasn’t normal, I might have autism” “this isn’t normal?? I need to look into this” “could this also be a symptom of x? I have this but I don’t think I have autism” “I experience some of these, I didn’t know it wasn’t normal”
i’m gonna lose my mind! the idea that there is such a thing as a “normal” brain with “average”, “normal”, “totally conventional” modes of function that don’t ever cross over with any characteristics that could be classed as atypical, the idea that brains exist in totally discrete (separate) categories and that anything you experience that is common to a diagnosis or category in general means your brain is now a Part Of That Category is an absolute fucking incredible failure of discourse and the ways it’s taught people to think about the world. the weird part is people have some sense of understanding that this way of thinking is wrong, like when they say “everyone gets sad that doesn’t mean you’re depressed” but can’t seem to broaden that insight to a consistent model of understanding human experience and pathology.
it’s like when people say trans people are valid because we have “male” or “female” brains or whatever and can’t seem to understand that those are somewhat arbitrary average distributions and not discrete categories and by no means can actually class you essentially into a category that was constructed by humans for social, colonial, or capitalist purposes.
edited to add: I feel like people will read this as anti-self-dx or something, when it’s the opposite. I think the culture we’ve built around pathology/neurodiversity/identity mirrors the very institutions it claims to position itself against. there is nothing *inherently* true or liberating about a self-determined diagnosis/label/identity, the same way there isn’t anything *inherently* true or liberating about an externally determined one. doctors are subject to error, bias, and all the effects of working with a framework that’s been created within and in service of broader oppressive systems, the same way *you* are subject to all of this when you go about self-diagnosing. this isn’t about blame or invalidating that endeavour, it’s just really weird to me that people treat self-diagnosis as somehow magically separate from the contexts which create it, not only in terms of the nature of the endeavour but how we conceptualise diagnosis/pathology/identity itself to begin with.
the main differences between self-dx and a doctor’s dx is 1) the doctor has been granted certain social and legal authorities (which are worth critiquing) and 2) involving a doctor means involving another person in the endeavour, which can be both a good and a bad thing. the rest stays generally the same, self-dx doesn’t inherently do anything to meaningfully challenge the medical and social systems that create our understanding of diagnosis, diversity, pathology, etc.
at worst it recreates the exact same ideas and attitudes present in the medical profession which serve the interests of phramaceutical corps, capitalism, the atomization of identities and individuals, bioessentialism, medicalization and pathologization, etc. but presented in a way that makes people think it’s progressive, and at best it simply serves as a way to circumvent barriers which make practical, material sources of aid deeply inaccessible.
as someone who self-dxd as autistic for years before receiving a diagnosis from a psychiatrist, the only thing *both* the self-dx and the psych dx have done is make me feel like many of the traits i was punished for throughout my life aren’t actually a problem and shouldn’t be treated as such, and making me feel like i can do things which allow me to feel more comfortable and functional (stimming, wearing ear plugs/mufflers, not having to look at people’s eyes, having my partner/friends understand my sensory issues so they don’t overstimulate me, understanding my general triggers, having my partner understand non-verbal episodes and working out how to navigate them together, working on not being ashamed to gush/infodump about things but also trying to understand when people aren’t feeling up to listening, not forcing myself to engage with situations or activities i don’t enjoy just because they’re socially standard things, etc.)
heres the fucking thing though!!! i shouldn’t have to have any fucking diagnosis to come to those understandings, self-dx or otherwise!! the understanding that behaviours which don’t harm others don’t need to be frowned down on shouldn’t be contingent on an identity label or diagnosis. behaviours and needs should be acknowledged and approached with care and understanding regardless of who is displaying them or why! the idea that diagnosis, labels, or identity categories legitimize these findings are literally what feeds back into the oppressive structures which gatekeep not only resources but also sympathy and understanding, because we legitimize the idea that these things should be contingent on someone qualifying as a certain category (and implicitly, as not the “opposite” category) to begin with.
the valuable insights and liberation i gained from understanding myself within the autism spectrum, i could’ve gained simply from existing in a context where i wasn’t punished or made to feel ashamed for my broadly harmless behaviours and needs, where i was made aware of things i can do or access to make me feel more comfortable and capable, no label or diagnosis necessary.
imo labels are only as useful as the political organization around them is. if the politics around neurodivergence are creating a dichotomy between “neurodivergent” and “neurotypical”, then these labels are being used in service of creating hyperreductive binaries which don’t accurately represent human experience and needs, and this creates an environment where everyone is clamouring to find ways to qualify as neurodivergent so their needs and behaviours can be legitimized and acknowledged in a context where either you’re neurodivergent and awarded that understanding and sympathy, or you’re neurotypical and awarded the role of the oppressor, with no space or nuance for variations in needs within those groups, or variations in power dynamics within and between.
it’s similar to the issue i have with how we conceptualise transness, cisness, gender, and gender nonconformity when it comes to trying to ascertain people’s needs, sources of oppression, power dynamics, and the points of crisis being faced by people across these categories because of how we structure the systems of gender and our approaches to them, and how “trans vs cis” doesn’t do a good job of reflecting reality. these needs and oppressions often overlap regardless of our insistence on categorizing them into separate, oppositional labels.
gummygunk
blakekathryn
tangentwithtanner
baratheonpilled
dailybridgerton
