The Rhetoric & Terminology of Neurodiversity
The neurodiversity movement is a request from those divergent in cognition (and their allies) to be reconsidered as something more fully human with intrinsic value. This paradigm shift is contrasted starkly against traditional frameworks: a medical perspective might define individ…
The neurodiversity movement is a request from those divergent in cognition (and their allies) to be reconsidered as something more fully human with intrinsic value. This paradigm shift is contrasted starkly against traditional frameworks: a medical perspective might define individuals by the health conditions they face; psychology might categorize them according to diagnosed disorders; education, rather reductively, might assess them based on deviations from normative developmental trajectories or their capacity to learn within prescribed timelines. Each of these perspectives ties human value to societal productivity—a concept diametrically opposed to the neurodiversity paradigm, which asserts the inherent value of individuals irrespective of their capabilities.
Neurodiversity is interdisciplinary. Disciplines bring with them not just expertise but specialized terminologies. While these vocabularies may be pertinent within their respective domains, it is crucial to “code switch” away from such specialized language when in educational contexts. Language reflects underlying intentions; employing deficit-based language focuses on shortcomings, and medicalized terminology centers on conditions and their treatment. The neurodiversity movement strives for a rhetoric that recognizes individuals as complete and integral members of humanity. Adopting language that supports neurodiversity is a continuous journey, and it is important to recognize that individuals are at various stages of this linguistic evolution. We must extend grace and understanding toward others’ levels of awareness and be prepared to engage respectfully with differing viewpoints to cultivate broader acceptance of this paradigm. The lexicon of neurodiversity is evolving and likely to undergo further changes before stabilizing. By prioritizing principles that center on the individual—acknowledging their humanity and personal preferences—we can navigate this evolving landscape with increased assurance and adaptability. The following are some examples of recent adaptations in language that move toward a rhetoric of neurodiversity and away from deficit based models.
Disabled Is Not a Bad Word
Disability is not a personal deficit to be fixed but a social experience shaped by barriers and inaccessibility. The medical model frames disability as a flaw in the individual, whereas the social model emphasizes how external structures limit participation (Oliver, 1996). The World Health Organization (2001) defines disability as an umbrella term reflecting interaction between health conditions and environmental contexts. Still, not all individuals who experience barriers self-identify as disabled. It is important to follow the individual’s lead.
The Term “Twice Exceptional”
Though the term “twice exceptional” names a real educational experience, it presents conceptual challenges. It narrowly applies to individuals who are both “gifted” and experience learning variability. This excludes those with multiple divergences that do not include “giftedness”. Additionally, the term can carry problematic class and race connotations, as it is sometimes used to elevate status or justify disproportionate accommodations. It may also imply deviation from a presumed norm—contrary to neurodiversity’s foundational belief that there is no singular “normal” brain (Kapp, 2020).\
“Giftedness”
The term “gifted” is frequently used in education yet it lacks a clear or consistent definition. Often associated with high cognitive ability or academic achievement, giftedness is mistakenly assumed to be omni-domain—implying a learner will excel across all areas and require minimal support. This belief can obscure learning variability, especially in twice-exceptional individuals whose strengths may mask their needs or whose challenges may hide their abilities (Reis & Renzulli, 2010). The label is often treated as a status marker rather than one expression of neurological diversity. Within a neurodiversity framework, giftedness should not be romanticized but understood as a cognitive difference requiring individualized understanding—just like any other form of divergence.
“Has Autism” vs. “Is Autistic”
The phrase “has autism” aligns with the medical model, implying that autism is a removable or undesirable condition. In contrast, many in the autistic community prefer identity-first language—“is autistic”—to reflect that autism is an intrinsic aspect of their identity, not something separable (Sinclair, 1999; Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). Person-first language may unintentionally suggest stigma or detachment from one’s neurotype. Respecting language preferences fosters dignity and reflects neurodivergent perspectives.
The “Superpower” Narrative
Celebrating strengths can be affirming, but framing neurodivergent traits as “superpowers” can oversimplify and stereotype. This rhetoric places pressure on individuals to exhibit exceptional abilities, sometimes obscuring real challenges and contributing to unrealistic societal expectations (Kapp, 2020). It can also commodify traits deemed marketable while overlooking needs that don’t generate profit.
A more nuanced example is monotropism—a theory developed by Murray et al. (2005)—which explains a deep, narrow focus common in autistic individuals. Rather than branding this attentional style as a superpower, monotropism highlights a unique mode of processing information that, when supported, can foster meaningful engagement and learning.
“High Functioning” and Functional Labels
The term “high functioning” falsely suggests a binary of ability, oversimplifying autism’s complexity and variability. It may lead to underestimating support needs and pressures individuals to mask struggles to meet perceived expectations (Kapp, 2020). Function-based labels focus on productivity rather than personhood and can invalidate lived experiences.
Instead, describing specific strengths, support needs, or contexts offers a more accurate and respectful approach that helps achieve a fuller understanding of neurodivergent individuals.
Honoring Individual Preference
Respecting self-identification is essential. Allowing individuals to choose their terms affirms autonomy, challenges stigma, and fosters empowerment. While default language aligned with the neurodiversity paradigm—like “neurodivergent”—may guide inclusive communication, honoring individual preferences should take precedence in interpersonal interactions (Walker, 2021).
Neurodiverse vs. Neurodivergent
“Neurodiverse” properly refers to a group with varied neurological profiles. It is not accurate to use it for an individual. An individual who diverges from neurotypical norms is “neurodivergent” (Walker, 2021). This distinction helps maintain clarity and respect in discourse.
Originally appeared on jaredjamesmay.com.
References
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2021). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest learners (Vol. 2). University of Iowa, Belin-Blank Center.
Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language in autism research. Autism, 25(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320958327
Ford, D. Y. (2014). Why education must be multicultural and gifted education must be equitable. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513509626
Kapp, S. K. (Ed.). (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0
Murray, D., Lesser, M., & Lawson, W. (2005). Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism. Autism, 9(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361305051398
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan Education.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
Sinclair, J. (1999). Why I dislike “person first” language. Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies, 1(2). https://www.autreat.com/dont_person_first.html
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health
