Neurodiversity cannot cure disability by convincing people they are not disabled. The movement has a sinister agenda to essentially erode the benefits and protection that those with neuro disorders have the right to. The philosophy of neurodiversity is not for the benefit of those with neuro disorders but for the benefit of the state, employers and educational institutes.
Neurodiversity, propelled forwards by an unseen momentum, is increasingly becoming an accepted and adopted movement in the media and workplace. This is resulting in a form of political spin on some of the more difficult symptoms of disorders into ‘positive’ stereotyping in order to make those with neurological disorders more attractive to employers. Some major employers are taking steps to actively increase the inclusion of those with neuro-disorders within their ranks. In itself this seems like an attitude to be welcomed. However, positive stereotyping is still stereotyping. This approach can lead to pigeonholing people into professions and vocations and therefore limiting their potential and choices. It can also create unhelpful assumptions and expectations of an individual resulting in typecasting. Neurodiversity follows similar movements to increase inclusion of people based on gender, race and sexuality. However, it is rightfully deemed unacceptable for these movements to be accompanied by positive stereotyping so it is unclear why neuro-disorders should be subjected to this demeaning strategy. Neurodiversity is masquerading as a noble cause.
People today are infinitely divided and segmented into a multitude of opposing identities. This has been in part achieved by the increasing drive to insist people self-identify with a group and provide platforms from which to express themselves, for example through forums and social media. This data is harvested and analysed with algorithms that allow sophisticated profiling of these groups in order to compose, structure and target messages in a manner that is most likely to influence. In the case of neuro-disorders, they manipulate the self-esteem, self-confidence and insecurities that are often symptomatic of such conditions. They use proficiency in behavioural science to harness the human tendency to protect itself through denial or delusion by playing back the very messages some people need so desperately to hear and answer their ‘why me’ questions. ‘You are special, you are gifted, you are superhuman, you are better than your neuro-typical counterparts, you are not disabled’. This sleight of hand approach is used to recruit victims to become vehement advocates of the very cause that is working against them.
Some advocates of the neurodiversity philosophy believe there should be no research into a cure. The diagnosis of neuro-disorders is increasing and yet neuro diversity ideology suggests that this should be accepted as a general phenomenon of human evolution that does not require a solution. However, any research into a cure, or more likely a preventative measure, may identify the cause of many neuro-disorders. If that cause is found to be man-made and even avoidable or preventable, that discovery would have profound and scandalous impacts on the credibility of the governing and corporate institutions in society and financial values of markets and entities. In addition, entities found responsible could expect demands for monumental compensation as well as costly and potentially global amendments to eradicate those causes.
Even without the discovery of any cause, the projected increase in diagnosis is a concern to leaders in finance and government as neuro-disorders cost money. The budgetary demands on state benefits including those that care for sufferers, additional care and therapy provided by health institutions, cover by private medical and income insurances, the obligations on employers to make reasonable adjustments to the workplace and budgets for assisted school places in mainstream education for example, must increase along with the diagnosis rate. There is evidence of an increasingly compelling motive to eradicate neuro-disorders.
Convincing people that neuro-disorders are not a disability and using those with such conditions to propel the agenda forward primes society to accept, almost unnoticed and without concern, the erosion and eventual removal of rights. Once society is convinced that neuro-disorders are not a disability then such a classification can be far more easily removed, along with all the associated rights and benefits, without significant protest. Causes that begin with honourable and worthy intentions can be hijacked by policy think tanks, political movements and corporate lobbyists by stealth in order to manipulate society’s most vulnerable members to support an agenda that is actually working against their interests and only working for the interests of others. These groups have extensive skills, channels and resources at their disposal in order to cease control of the perception of the public and write the narrative to benefit their theme.
No one has the right to tell an individual they are not disabled. The decision to consider oneself disabled can only be taken by the individual. Many neuro-disorders are considered and classified as a disability. However, if an individual with such a diagnosis does not want to consider themselves disabled, then more power to them. Disabilities affect different people in different ways. Some find it has little to no effect on their ability to function in everyday life. Others however experience a greater struggle. Overall, the classifications and hard-earned subsequent rights of neuro-disorders as a disability must be retained for those that need it. The protection and inclusion of those who may be disadvantaged or infirm is the hallmark of a truly civilised society. The neuro-diversity movement is superfluous. The Equalities Act already makes provisions to protect and promote the needs and abilities of disabled people. It is this act that people must support and protect and not the neurodiversity movement that seems to seek to actually undermine it. We must guard against this manipulative force and take back control of the agenda and narrative.
To request that allowances and accommodations are made to level the playing field and to promote inclusion are honourable and noble approaches. To suggests that people with disabilities have something of equal worth to offer the world, and to help disabled people recognise that themselves, is also to be encouraged. However to insist that a recognised disability should not be considered as such is a step to far, and we must be the last line of defence against it.
02 Apr 2018, 12:40 pm
