The neurodiversity argument always seems to me a misguided one. It argues that these neurological identities/configurations are not inherent problems but just differences which are only made to have negative effects on the person's life by societal preconception and bigotry. Those things do make it much worse and need to change, but I would argue that doesn't stop these brain-states from being independently troublesome. The author mentions problems with speech processing, speaking, sensory overload, sleeping, getting out of bed, eating, smells, textures, and navigation. None of those problems were created by society and none of them can be fixed by the neurodiversity paradigm.
The author mentions problems with speech processing, speaking,
sensory overload, sleeping, getting out of bed, eating, smells,
textures, and navigation. None of those problems were created by
society
Your understanding of the neurodiversity movement isn't correct.
Neither the article nor the movement in general claims that society "created" her difficulty performing those things.
The neurodiversity movement points out (correctly, IMO) that lots of people with behavioral "disabilities" are in fact quite able, but need to do things differently and may need accommodations.
It says that autism and other behavioral health issues are not necessarily inherently "bad" (just as being in a wheelchair is not inherently bad) but we fail as a society when fail to accommodate such folks.
Broadly I agree wholeheartedly with this. Ultimately it's a message of ability. It is a movement by and for people who want to achieve and be a part of society. As somebody with diagnosed ADHD this is how I approach things as well. I don't consider it a disability. I just tend to do things a little differently.
A valid criticism of the neurodiversity movement is that it seems to gloss over the fact that, well, often behavioral health issues are genuinely debilitating. A schizophrenic who hears voices in their head would probably not claim that it is some hidden strength.
On the whole though, I think the movement is a good thing. It is ultimately a message of ability and a call for inclusiveness.
What sort of mental gymnastics does it take to convince yourself not being able to walk isn't inherently bad? Not being able to walk is bad. Not being able to fly is bad. Not being immortal is bad. Inabilities are bad regardless of what the "normal" state is. Society and accommodation could make up for 90% of the downsides but being confined to a wheelchair will never be a neutral status.
What sort of mental gymnastics does it take to
convince yourself not being able to walk isn't
inherently bad?
Of course it's inherently bad. But it is not necessarily deabilitating -- unless of course you're forced to navigate a world where you can't use your wheelchair, etc.
> Society and accommodation could make up for 90% of the downsides
Why not 100%? For every downside you can come up with, can't you imagine some possible way for society to make up for it? Here's a simple one: calculate the value of whatever the disabled person is missing out on, and pay them a cash compensation.
How much are your legs worth to you? Really think about the question. How much would someone have to pay you for you to be happy for them to take them away from you? For me I can't put a number on that. I can't imagine any degree of compensation that would make me glad to make the exchange.
> It says that autism and other behavioral health issues are not necessarily inherently "bad" (just as being in a wheelchair is not inherently bad) but we fail as a society when fail to accommodate such folks.
You know, when I put on ramp for someone with wheelchair, it is done. It takes some space, alright, but mostly does not affect healthy peoples days.
When I am yelled at and get insulted by an autistic because I personally did not done things in the exact required routine, then it is not nearly the same thing. It is not that we should not accommodate people with issues. But pretending these are not issues that dont affect others is not accurate either.
When you get insulted by a neurotypical person, you'd call that person a jerk. But when you get insulted by an autistic person, the problem is that they are autistic?
There are plenty of autists who go through life without 'yelling at and insulting' people.
Again, the neurodiversity movement does not claim that every single behavioral health issue nor every manifestation of every behavioral health issue is a good thing.
I like how this is all about you. "Neurodiversity is b.s. because somebody with autism yelled at me!"
In case this is what you need to hear, I am sorry a person yelled at you. That's not fair to you and I am sure it was unpleasant.
Did you know there are folks out here arguing for an even stronger version of this position? The 'social model of disability' is the name for the wider notion that includes the neurodiversity argument/paradigm to which you refer, and applies to all other disabilities. On this view, all the problems you mention are only problems because society doesn't give affected people enough support (ETA; to clarify (or rather, to give my best interpretation of the position I don't actually hold): material support. Not just lack of 'societal preconception and bigotry').
It's an ethical/political (and maybe economic?) position.
On this view, all the problems you mention are only
problems because society doesn't give affected people
enough support
Sure, it's possible to reductio ad absurdum the "social model", just like nearly anything else.
"Being in a coma isn't a problem! It just makes you different. The problem is society's refusal to cater to the workplace needs of people in a vegetative coma state!"
All the social model aims to do is think about a separation of the impairment itself and the ways in which society may make it worse.
In some cases, sure. Lots of impairments will just be debilitating no matter what. Somebody in a coma is not going to be able to participate in society very much.
Lots of counterexamples though. For example, imagine a skilled software developer. However, she needs a wheelchair and she can't work anywhere in town because none of the buildings have wheelchair access. A perfectly able developer has been rendered disabled (or at least, unable to work) by this fact. This is somebody who could be working, if we simply build wheelchair ramps or allowed her to work from home.
> All the social model aims to do is think about a separation of the impairment itself and the ways in which society may make it worse.
The aim is merely a change in thinking? I'm pretty sure one aim is to get more resources to support disabled (or impaired) people. And that's fine. We live in a society.
What's not fine is the rhetorical trickery (motivated redefinitions of words) deployed as part of the SM.
