NT opinion of the word 'neurotypical'

Post Reply New Topic

Well, to start from the beginning, I was officially diagnosed today. And no, I don't want half a dozen 'congratulations' for it as if I've gained entrance to some exclusive club! I still feel much the same as I did this morning.

Anyway, back to my original topic. When the doctor was telling me what it meant for me in terms of stress management, etc., at some point he referred to 'people without Asperger's', and I said 'I've seen the word 'neurotypical' around the place', and he said he didn't like that word.

Is this common among NTs who know what it means, to not like it? I only hope the ASD community has not inadvertantly created a term that can be perceived to be derogatory.

A few NTs who I've told the word to have said they like it, because they feel uncomfortable saying 'normal', in case they offend me. It's more PC, if you will.

But this doctor already knew the word, and doesn't like it.


By the way, he also suggested I read something by Tony Attwood. Can anyone reccommend a specific book by him that's good for young-adult, female Aspies?

The term neurotypical sounds better than the term "aspie" in my opinion. I don't like the sound of that word at all.

Maybe he's resistant to the idea that anyone is completely neurotypical and if so, I think he's got a point.
I don't know if Attwood has written a book with Carol Gray about his "discovery criteria" but there's an article or two. I think it's worth a read. here's a link.

http://www.thegraycenter.org/store/inde ... page_id=58

Individuals are not NTs. it is a term useful for applying to people as an average. So yeah, hes right.

There are many people that feel that it "lumps" people too much.

However, if he was using generalizations like "People without Asperger's manage stress much better than people with Asperger's do" then HE was also "lumping".

Using the social model of disability activism, people who are considered to be non-disabled usually have no problem making generalizations about disabled people, but get offended when the disabled community turns it around on them. It is a way to turn the disabled community into an "other" (something that the "normal" society doesn't have to concern themselves with).

I didnt know the phrase NT at all till I started lurking in here. I assumed it was a catchy shortterm phrase that was born so one didnt have to go "People without aspergers" all the time or "people not on the autism scale" as typing NT is alot easier.

I dont think the phrase seems to bad, but maybe because the word "typical" in my mother tounge means "ordinary / nothing special at all" and isnt positive/negatively charged at all, so it seems pretty... neutral.

I think the doctor mean that Neurotypical the phrase seems to point out that NOT being NT isnt typical and therefore emphasizes the whole "not normal" thing. In the medical world its quite normal to not be normal. And there is so many different diagnosis out there that is neuro-connected somehow so it might be ethically wrong for him to pinpoint a typical group.

I dont know?

(I could add, the first time I wrote on these boards and type "I am NT and my friend has AS" I felt a bit bad, almost like I was saying "I am right and he is wrong". Which isnt the case. So to be I felt a big awkward using it in the start until I embraced it as "just a catchphrase" as I explained in the first paragraph...)

I would dislike the word Neurotypical (or NT) if it was used in a way that included me, because, well, I've had to live with not being neurotypical all my life, and calling me neurotypical doesn't recognize that.

I can imagine some people who (unlike me) don't have any AS traits might feel the same way. Particularly, those who are non-neurotypical in different ways.

I don't think disliking the term neurotypical is a general thing. Just a some of them thing. Not that I've much experience to go on.

There should be a shirt, "Subvert the dominant neurological paradigm".

Personally - - I think neurologically I'm far from typical. There are several reasons which I won't bore anyone with. But while I'm on WP, I perceive "NT" in context to mean: not on the Asperger's spectrum and therefore demonstrative of typical emotional / interpersonal reactions.

Socioculturally - I think NT vs Aspie / (or NT vs fill in the blank _____) promotes a highly definitive and binary view of human neurology. Billions of points of a saddle curve would probably be more useful for comprehending our condition.

Well, I think "neurotypical" and "without Asperger's" is not the same. There are tons of other neurological issues out there, which may be totally different from autism but not "typical". Also, the term "neurotypical" implies that there's less variation among "normal people" than there is among people on the spectrum ... which is NOT true. (Plus it often seems to be used quite negatively, in a we-are-so-special-and-they-aren't-way.)

(I do understand the need for a handy abbreviation, but I can see what people dislike about it. It's too ... black and white. )

But how else are you supposed to talk about it? The fact is that we are more different from average than most. That's why we're called autistic. You need a word for "not diagnosable with a mental/neurological/cognitive condition" that doesn't take forever to say or type.

Using neurotypical as a name for people without a diagnosis is about as valid as using autistic as a word for those with one. NTs aren't all alike any more than autistics are all alike, and we'd better acknowledge that; but just having a name for a group of people doesn't mean anything.

If you use "typical" to mean "typical range", acknowledging that there is a range, I think it's just fine. After all, we use "autistic" to refer to a group of people, and autistic people have an even wider range of cognitive traits among them. If it's fair for us to call ourselves a group, it's fair to have a name for people who are in the other groups.

Here is fact -

ANYTHING can be and is an insult. ANYTHING can be and is a compliment. As a linguist, I see it. Over and over we find new POLITE terms for bodily functions. Over and over they become dirty.

Again and again outsiders take our proud name and make it an ethnic slur. Again and again we take the dirty word they called us and rally round it.

Whatever. I suspect it comes down to - it is not [in they eyes of the Mob] for the AS types to bestow lablels. WE are the diferent ones who get labels. Negro is descriptive, Honky a slur.

Don't call us, we'll call you.

Thanks for the links, Aimless.

I think my personal opinion would be close to what Callista said. I thought it was a little odd that the doctor didn't like the word, though, since I've talked to a number of people before who were glad to be supplied with a word they could use instead of 'normal', that simply meant 'not on the autistic spectrum' in a fairly neutral, factual way - which is how I use the word. Not in an 'us and them' way, just factual.