Say It Right: A Neurodiversity Language Guide for Allies

Your Brain on Language

Source: DALL.E

Language can shape human lives. The use of “disorder” vs. “difference,” “weird” vs. “sensory sensitive,” or “oddball” vs. “neurodivergent” influences how we are treated by schools and employers, medical professionals, bosses, and neighbors. Words influence whether we can get employment and housing. Words influence our inner talk and whether we like or hate ourselves.

Neurodiversity language matters.

Of course, the evolving nature of language can make knowing what is “right” difficult—and when it comes to the language of neurodiversity, there is much confusion—for several reasons.

• In some cases, the mass media, some of the peer-reviewed literature, and editorial guides of journals and news outlets fail to keep up with the community culture-building and use outdated terminology.
• In other cases, organizations presuming to advocate on behalf of these communities speak over people with lived experience and insist on biased language.
• And even more confusion can arise when people adopt a new language but combine it with the assumptions of old paradigms.

What should a well-meaning person do when faced with contradictory information? When should you use neurodivergent or neurodiverse? Or “with neurodiversity”? (The last one—never in application to a human, only in something like “designing with neurodiversity in mind.”)

Here are a few tips.

The term neurodiversity, or neurological diversity, arrived at the scene when early internet spaces and listservs of the 1990s facilitated autistic culture-building and reframing of previously pathologized differences in psychological “wiring” as diversity rather than a disorder. In the late 1990s, the term was used in an academic thesis by Judy Singer and a brief Atlantic article by Harvey Blume, ushering in the increasing use (and misuse). My additional research on the topic is documented in my book, The Canary Code: A Guide to Neurodiversity, Dignity, and Intersectional Belonging at Work. Here, let’s jump to the application.

Group-Level Terms: Neurodiversity and Neurodiverse

Neurodiversity refers to a limitless variety in human neurological development and function. These differences are not a bug but a feature of humanity. Our groups benefit from having members who pay attention to detail and others who focus on the big picture, people who think in words and people who think in pictures, people who can sense the danger early and people who can face the danger boldly.

Neurodiversity is a group-level characteristic. To communicate understanding and appreciation of neurodiversity, you can use phrasing like: “Research demonstrates the benefits of the groups’ neurodiversity on the creativity of the output” (it does) or “We value the neurodiversity of our workforce.”

In other words, humans, as a group, are neurodiverse. “We aim to build neurodiverse teams” would be a correctly phrased (and worthy) goal.

Individual or Subgroup Terms: Neurodivergent, Neurotypical, or Member of a Neurominority Group

While neurobiological diversity is natural, societies form shared perceptions of who is “just right” and who is “too serious,” “too fidgety,” “too fast,” “too slow,” “too quiet,” “too loud,” or “too smart for their own good.” These neuronormative cultural expectations vary by time and space—the people in ancient Mesopotamia, medieval Portugal, and modern Canada would define “normal” quite differently. “Normal,” then, is quite arbitrary.

To explain how socially constructed expectations of neuronormativity translate into the human experience, neurodivergent thought leaders developed the terms neurotypical, neurodivergent, and neurominority.

Neurotypical: A person or people whose neurobiology or functioning is seen as typical by prevailing cultural standards and who can relatively easily meet neuronormativity expectations.

Neurodivergent: A person or people whose neurobiology or functioning diverges from what is seen as typical or neuronormative. Neurodivergence encompasses the whole person, including physical coordination and sensory processing; emotional differences, such as the intensity of emotional experience and the ability to recognize and express emotion; cognitive differences, such as thinking in words or in pictures, and social interaction. While dyslexia or ADHD are often used as examples of neurodivergence, differences like stuttering, tics and acquired neurodivergence resulting from trauma or psychological effects of Long Covid and other illnesses also reflect neurobiological variation. Differences generally viewed as positive (e.g., giftedness) belong under the broad neurodivergence umbrella as well.

Because the term neurodivergent (coined by Kassiane Asasumasu) is so encompassing, Nick Walker proposed a more specific term, neurominority, to identify groups of people sharing an innate type of neurodivergence inseparable from who they are for which they face prejudice or discrimination (e.g., autistic or dyslexic people).

Neurodiversity Essential Reads

Why Your Teams Aren't Clicking: The Neurodiversity Factor

Beyond Awareness and Inclusion: Declaring NeuroDignity

Here are a few specific tips:

• Let’s say you want to communicate that your organization welcomes neurodivergent or neurominority applicants. You can say: “We welcome applications from neurodivergent candidates,” “We welcome members of neurominority communities” (best used as a subgroup-level term), or “We are happy to accommodate neurodivergent people’s needs.”
• Or perhaps you want to ensure your public health systems are neuroinclusive. An internal policy statement could read, “We support the needs of neurodivergent people” or “Care providers must use multiple communication strategies to meet the needs of both neurodivergent and neurotypical clients.”
• DO NOT refer to individuals as “neurodiverse”—this is a collective term. For example, a theater company that includes dyslexic, autistic, and neurotypical people is “neurodiverse.” But the city mayor who disclosed depression and ADHD is “openly neurodivergent.” More generally, when applied to individuals, the term “diverse” is problematic; it can reflect othering and tokenism. Another problematic term is “with neurodiversity”—it is linguistically incorrect, othering, and communicates the assumption that neurodivergence is a disorder—the very antithesis of the neurodiversity approach.

Respecting Individual Preferences:

The previous advice refers to organizational communication, such as policy statements, media guidelines, or website language. However, while there is a general agreement on preferred language within neurodivergent communities, individual preferences and word use differ. For instance, while "neurodivergent" is the broadly accepted term to describe a range of neurobiological differences, some may refer to themselves as “neurodiverse.” Similarly, most autistic adults prefer identity-first language; “autistic” emphasizes that autism is an integral part of who we are. However, some individuals, along with many parents, prefer person-first language and “with autism.”

The same nuances apply to ADHD. While "ADHDer" is gaining popularity, reflecting a sense of identity within the ADHD community, many still use more traditional phrasing “with ADHD.”

At the individual level, it’s always best to ask people directly how they wish to be identified. Respectful communication means allowing space for people to define themselves in ways that feel most authentic.

The Living Language of Neurodiversity

The language of neurodiversity is still developing. Don’t be afraid to make a mistake, apologize, and learn. Opinions differ. Times change. The once-appropriate language can become outdated; even Blume’s 1998 Atlantic article that helped make the word neurodiversity popular contains language many within the community now consider offensive (”high-functioning”). Using a “wrong” word unintentionally happens. Ask, learn, repeat. Most community members will appreciate openness and a growth-focused approach.

A version of this post also appears on Forbes. It is partially adapted from Praslova, L. (2024). The Canary Code: a Guide to Neurodiversity, Dignity, and Intersectional Belonging at Work. Berrett-Koehler.