Why do some find the term "Neuroypical" offensive?

Post Reply New Topic

That does not give one the right to do it to others, although it is a fairly consistent phenomenon. I once worked under a social psychologist who did research in this area. The consistency of her findings was actually depressing. Victims becoming victimizers. The oppressed becoming oppressors. It is sad and speaks very poorly of the human race. But all too often, people find a strange sense of justification that makes them think it is ok.

I do not think it is ok.



I don't follow what you are saying. I mean, I understand the sentence, but I don't understand what it is connected to.



I'm not overly fond of the phrase "these people" in this sentence. Who are "these people"? I know lots of people who are highly individualistic. I also know lots of people who are free thinkers. But what I don't know is if they are one of "these people" or not. Are "these people" NTs? Or are "these people" men who talk about sports and cars all the time? Who cares if they talk about sports and cars all the time? If that is what they are interested in, who is anyone else to say that they shouldn't discuss it? I know my son feels entitled to discussing his special interests. Should he be afforded that opportunity without judgment, whereas an NT person cannot?

It reminds me of how people of different races tend to think that people from other races "all look alike." It is a processing error, not a fact. All NTs are no more alike than all Aspies are alike. All black people do not look alike. All white people do not look alike. All Asians do not look alike. They have similarities, yes. But they also have significant differences. But as long as someone sees them as "them" I suppose there is no motivation to see past the similarities to recognize the differences.

I do not object to the use of the term "neurotypical" as a descriptor indicating that someone does not have atypical wiring. Then I would agree: it fits. But when it is used as a blanket, negative descriptor, I must object, for the same reasons anyone would object to being lumped in with an entire group of people as if they are all homogenous when they are not.

I don't find it offensive. I think of it as the most non-offensive term to describe a person with no diagnosable neurological conditions. I find calling them ''normal'' more offensive. I know the word ''normal'' doesn't mean ''acceptable'', but it still makes it seem that way.

Occasionally I have said ''normal people'' on here (referring to NTs), but that's because I get bored of using the same words, but generally I call most people NTs.

while i get that you do not like the segregative nature of labels you also have to realize that those 99% of them do, is the very reason that such terms exist,
i think you got reversed in the order of things happening, it was excactly because there is a relatively consistent difference that the terms exist.

I agree 100%. And I don't mind the segregative nature of them in the "pure" sense: Dividing things into groups of like items. Useful. Not judgmental. What ruffles my feathers is when the labels take on a derogatory meaning. And that is what I think some may find offensive about the label "NT." There is a not insignificant group of people on the spectrum who look down on NT's because they view them, as a whole, to be a group of bumbling idiots who mindlessly follow one another around without a logical thought in their brain. It is not only inaccurate and offensive, but absurd.

if used as a general statement it might be absurd but remember many spectrumites full well acknowledge that there are plenty of brilliant NT's, while still saying that nt's in general arent worth their time.

some of the differences do manifest themselves in ways that are quite easy to misinterpret, i dont think they are inherently illogical but i have observed that for many NT's socialization is the sole focus and it has consequences, if you dont realize that there are many other glasses to view the world from then it does become extremely limiting, giving the effect of a bumbling idiot when put in the light of for an example intellectual argumentation, the same is of course true in the reverse, someone who usually things like the intelectual argumenter and never considers another world view will have much the same issues, just in another department so to speak.

bottom line, it is hard not to call it like you see it, and there are plenty of the so called bumbling idiots to see, the actual issue are the ones that doesnt allow for any exceptions to that view.
(it is quite hard to pretend most people are intelligent and intelectually considerate people, it doesnt jibe with reality, that geos far across any label though)

Well, as my father often says: by definition, half of the population is at or below average intelligence. So, yes, there are a plethora of unintelligent and minimally intelligent people out there. Regardless of whether they fall on or off the spectrum.

I take issue with the term 'neurotypical', for many of the same reasons InThisTogether in her two posts above.

It appears as though people can't decide whether 'neurotypical' means 'not autistic' or 'not having any mental disorder'. I would assume the latter, but all too often it seems that it is used to mean the former. As jonny23 said above, it creates an 'us vs. them' dynamic which I want no part of.

To be honest, all objections that I have toward the word 'neurotypical' stem from the confusion surrounding whether it means 'non-autistic' or 'without mental disorder'. Some people will use it this way, and others will use it that way, and that makes it an ill-defined term. Also, it seems to be a term exclusive to the autistic community. A word for insiders.

Most of the people you would term 'neurotypicals' won't self-identify as neurotypical because they've never heard of the term, and many of them know little to nothing about autism because it simply isn't a factor in their lives. It's like growing up without having any relatives, friends, or acquaintances who are deaf. Or blind. If you're not familiar with autism in your own social circle, you're not going to give it much thought. Maybe you'll see something about it on TV, read an article in a magazine, but that's where it ends.

Finally, I take issue with the stereotypes that all or most 'neurotypicals' are shallow, obsessed with socialising, hierarchy, and herd-behaviour, and uninterested in intellectual and creative pursuits. As I've stated before, I've met so many people who are obviously not autistic, quite the opposite -extraverts and socialisers- and who are a million times more knowledgeable, intelligent, and creative than I am.

In short, I don't agree with either the original conception of the word 'neurotypical' as an alternative to 'normal', or the many different definitions and ideas people ascribed to the notion of 'neurotypicality' after the creation of the word.

So is "Autistic"/"Aspie"/etc.

Let's break the word down: Neurotypical

Neuro (from the word Neural)- process of the brain using electrical signals to allow proper use of the body and/or process memory, thought, etc.

Typical- Having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing. (from dictionary)

So, taking the word "typical" as a specialist would, typical would mean whatever kind of thing that most people in the world have and people/specialists consider to be a normal occurence in nature.
In that case:

Neurotypical actually means: "Having the qualities of the brain's capabilities that are a normal occurence in nature that most people in the world have". Translation- Your brain works in the same way most brains do in order to process information.

The term "Neurotypical" is not used as slang, nor as a label, but rather a scientific term used to describe most of the world's known brain patterns. Similar to "Autistic" for Autistic individuals.

"Aspie" however, is slang, and is not recognized as a scientific term, and is generally used in a generalising format to describe a mass of people (making it a label), rather than a condition (or lack thereof). Which is why some of us don't like that term.

I am NT and not at all offended but my first thought was "aww mannn... I don't wanna be typical" lol. I actually like the term much better thatn "Normal" Both my 13 year old son and my boyfriend are AS. My son is diagnosed and I am pretty sure my boyfriend is completely aware that he is but he has never said so directly though has told me how he thinks, feels, processes etc... Although my boyfriend and I have discussed my son's AS as we are trying to teach him social behaviors etc I have never used the term with my son or stated that my boyfriend is AS to him either. My reason is that first, there are so many perceptions about AS and so many of them are inaccurate. And I don't agree with the thinking of many NT's that there is something "wrong" with them. Why is it wrong? Because it is not how you process? I am a passionate emotional person who believes things on faith, they both only believe what they have concrete proof of. Who can say that one of us is right and one wrong. We are both right in our own opinions.. (sorry a little ranty on my part there) with that being said... I like the NT/AS (the letters more than the full name) or NT/Aspie terms because it describes the actions with out judging them. Aspie sounds cute where Austisim Spectrum DISORDER bothers me disorder emplys something wrong, Symptoms bothers me.. I prefer traits.

Well said LoriB.

I don't get it either. I've heard NT's and NA's (non-autistics) say that they prefer the term "normal" because they think "neurotypical" is some "hippy-dippy-liberal-mumbo-jumbo", but I'm sure that's not who you are referring to.

I guess people are offended by the notion that there is such a thing as being neurologically typical and that it somehow denies the diversity of the human experience. I think that's silly. If your brain is functioning typically, then you are a neurotypical. That doesn't mean you are some sort of monolithic hive-mind. It just means that your brain functions similarly to how doctors expect your brain to function. It's kind of like how my physical health is within the typical range (at least for my age, gender, nationality, etc). That doesn't mean my body is identical to everyone elses' - it just means that it falls within that category.

Never heard of it what's Neuroypical?

Sometimes I find it confusing when people use it as another term for ''everybody existing on the planet except Aspies and Autistics''. Then in the next breath somebody explains ''neuro-typical'' as in ''Having a normal (usual, ordinary) ability to process linguistic information and social cues'', which then doesn't clearly describe those with other conditions besides Autism, like Down's Syndrome, Mental Retardation, Alzheimer's, and other conditions that can affect a person's development and/or characteristics in a noticeably altered way from the expected norm.

So, I don't know about anybody else here, but I feel more comfortable with people using the term ''neuro-typical'' for people with no diagnosable psychological (neurological) conditions.

That's actually what "neurotypical" means in the scientific field "having no notable neurological conditions pertaining to be a disability". The word itself, as I stated earlier, by definition, literally means "having the neurological capabilities that is considered normal, or typical of the brain and it's capacity".

I'm not entirely sure that it has been adopted by the scientific community (meaning, appearing in research articles published in scientific journals). It may have been by now, but it may still just be used on autism websites and blogs.

Donna Williams weighs in:

http://www.donnawilliams.net/ntswhenaword.0.html



Donna Williams gives a history of the term "neurotypical" and then explains why she no longer uses it. She dropped it once it stopped being purely adjectival and started being satirical.

For the record, I refer to myself here as "NT" for purely descriptive purposes. It does confusingly bounce back and forth between meaning "not autistic" and meaning "having no condition found in the DSM". I just go with whatever use is being used in that thread. The term seems to still be in flux and not actually accepted by the scientific community yet because it has these conflicting meanings.

It gives my posts clarity to call myself NT in some of them (if it's relevent). But I do get annoyed by the tagalong meanings that sometimes come into play of NT people being interested only in fashion or celebrity trivia or whatever the derogatory thing is in the thread. It annoyed Donna Williams too, thus her blog entry. But it does make a handy shorthand for "someone who is not on the autism spectrum" because that's a lot to type over and over.