Talk:Neurodiversity

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

While researching neurodiversity organizations, I came across some information. These articles, by any measure, seem to indicate that neurodiversity groups oppose disability-selective abortion.

Neurodiversity organizations acknowledge that abortion is a pregnant person's right. However, they argue that unlike non-selective abortion, disability-selective abortion constitutes discrimination. I included this point in an Article, but it was deleted by another user who cited 'original research' as the reason. Yet, the material below, in my opinion, clearly shows opposition to disability-selective abortion from any perspective. and the organizations themselves seem to have made their position known without concealing it.

Evans, M. (2020). The Autistic Genocide Clock. In: Kapp, S. (eds) Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.

The Autistic Genocide Clock was created by Autistic activist Meg Evans in 2005. The Clock was a ten-year countdown in the image of a clock in response to researcher Dr. Joseph Buxbaum’s public pronouncement that genetic research on autism could lead to a prenatal genetic test within 10 years. Evans’ point was that a prenatal genetic test for autism could lead to abortions of fetuses that test positive for autism: a form of genocide in her view. The Autistic Genocide Clock warned about the risk of genocide to the autistic population that drew parallels to historic attempts to eliminate minority groups. Evans took the clock down in 2011 after the prenatal test seemed unlikely and the culture had moved much further towards acceptance.

John Pring on 4th November 2021, Autistic campaigners’ anger over Spectrum 10K protest lock-out and ‘scare tactics’, disabilitynewsservice.

Nicky Vere-Compton warned that the research could eventually be used to encourage parents to abort unborn babies that had a genetic link to autism.

She said: “We have already seen what happened when they found a DNA link for Down’s.

“They used that as an opportunity to have conversations with the parents of unborn Down’s babies, saying, ‘Would you like to abort your child?’

“And as a consequence, less Down’s babies are being born now.

“If they find the DNA link for autism, which they won’t, because I don’t believe it exists, but if I’m wrong and they do, what will happen is that every doctor will be speaking to the parent of an unborn autistic and saying, ‘Would you like to abort your baby?’

“The level of ignorance about the autistic neurotype means that more parents than not will say, ‘Oh no, I don’t want an autistic child’ and there will be less of us being born.

David Gray-Hammond, who read out the statement, added: “On a personal note, I think most of us were lost for words when we saw this research come out… it’s yet another attack on the autistic community.

“Yet again, people are trying to find out what causes autism, rather than actually support the ones that are already here.

“Because we are here, we are human beings, we exist and we deserve support, and instead £3 million is being poured into research which could potentially be used to eradicate us.

“We have a right to exist.”

Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Letter to ACLU on Wrongful Birth and Life Statements, May 25, 2012

We are writing as members of the disability community to express disappointment with your action alert this past March defending wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits. As civil rights advocates, we are grateful for the ACLU’s tireless work. However, we strongly feel that your defense of these suits fails to address issues that reach beyond reproductive choice and that profoundly affect people with disabilities. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to begin a dialogue between our organizations. People with disabilities see these lawsuits as involving distinct issues unrelated to abortion, namely the harm to society when courts make decisions about the value of the lives of individuals with disabilities who have already been born. We are disappointed that an organization committed to and with a long history of protecting civil liberties and human rights, particularly the rights of traditionally marginalized or underrepresented communities, would support a policy that dehumanizes people with disabilities and devalues their lives. Wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits have as their basis the assumption that life with a disability is not worth living, which goes against the principles of the disability rights movement and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These actions require parents to publicly reject their child because of a disability. Only parents who convince the court that their child should never have been born are eligible to win a wrongful birth or wrongful life lawsuit. Similarly, because not every disability will be considered significant enough to win a wrongful birth or life lawsuit, courts are required to make decisions about which types of disabilities are “so bad” that parents should be compensated for having the child.

Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Australia and New Zealand, "History of Autistic Advocacy: How we got here"

Meanwhile, Meg Evans’ Genocide Clock warns of the dangers of prenatal autism screening, raising concerns about the erasure of autistic lives.

--Otyuso23 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Your whole response is soapboxing and does not add encyclopedic information about what neurodiversity is. Zefr (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What soapboxing have I done? Please provide evidence that I was soapboxing. It seems to me that you are denying the objective fact that neurodiversity organizations made claims that potentially infringe upon pregnant people's reproductive rights, and you are doing so without evidence. Otyuso23 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Zefr Otyuso23 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Neurodiversity is about fighting discrimination and stigma against autistic and other neurodivergent people. Opposing genetic testing and selective abortions (while supporting the right to choose whether to have children at all, when and how many) is part of that, just as improving accommodations in schools and workplaces is. LogicalLens (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

May I interpret this text as specifically stating that 'neurodiversity' opposes 'selective abortion'?

Steve Silberman, NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity, Avery Publishing, ISBN 978-1-58333-467-6, pp.470.

“Neurodiversity advocates propose that instead of viewing this gift as an error of nature—a puzzle to be solved and eliminated with techniques like prenatal testing and selective abortion—society should regard it as a valuable part of humanity’s genetic legacy while ameliorating aspects of autism that can be profoundly disabling without adequate forms of support.”

Otyuso23 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@LogicalLens

Am I correct in understanding that you concede the neurodiversity movement opposes selective abortion? Otyuso23 (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

That heavily depends on the country. In the US, where people bully one into believing that one must be part of either the pro-choice or the pro-life camp, and that if one is pro-choice, one cannot oppose selection, and if one is opposed to selection, one must be pro-life, the neurodiversity movement typically says that they are "concerned" about selection. In other countries, opposition can be more direct. In many European countries, for example, abortion in general is permitted but sex-selective abortion is banned, which is supported by the Council of Europe. This makes it easier to argue against disability selection. LogicalLens (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Otyuso23, I think you can add it attributing this claim to Silberman. Alaexis_¿question? 11:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otyuso23 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

As can be read in the 1999 thesis by Judy Singer (cfr. Judy Singer#Biography end of second paragraph), the term "neurodiversity" is intended as the neural equivalent of "biodiversity", implying that no two identical neural systems/minds can exist. The term "neurodivergence" means the quality of a mind that is non-standard in the following functions: sensory processing, motor abilities, social comfort, cognition, and focus.

Conflating the two is a disservice to both. Proposing to create two different entries, one for the concept introduced by Singer and one for the group of diagnoses. Alternatively, edit the existent Neurodiversity entry to clarify that is not a synonim with neurodivergence. Joltreeds (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It has become common for giftedness to be considered a form of neurodiversity (or neurodivergence). Whether or not this view is correct or held by the majority of experts, it is widespread enough that the article probably should mention it.

References:

“Giftedness is a form of neurodiversity”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/going-beyond-intelligence/202107/neurodiversity-and-gifted-education

“…giftedness is one form of neurodiversity…”

https://bcacc.ca/the-missed-neurodiversity-advocate-for-recognition-and-resources-for-gifted-individuals

“Giftedness is considered to be neurodiversity”

https://www.medboundtimes.com/medbound-blog/giftedness-in-adults-a-neurodivergence-or-untapped-potential

“ The authors acknowledge that people with Autism, ADHD, giftedness, epilepsy and other neurodiverse conditions are often more difficult to interact with.”

https://lizziemargaret.com/2025/08/29/beyond-difficult-an-attachment-based-guide-to-dealing-with-challenging-people-by-rachel-samson-and-dr-jessie-stern/

https://www.simonandschuster.ca/books/Beyond-Difficult/Rachel-Samson/9781923419513 ~2025-33658-96 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Giftedness as a form of neurodiversity/neurodivergence contradicts the first sentence of Twice exceptional, "twice-exceptional ... individuals acknowledged as gifted and neurodivergent", because that sentence implies that giftedness is not a subset of neurodivergence. (The concept of 2e would be meaningless if all gifted people were also neurodivergent; it would be like saying a Catholic person was "twice religious" because they were both Catholic and Christian.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Some do not regard it as a neurodivergence, but in this, I do not see a reason not to mention the fact that others do count it as a form of neurodivergence. LogicalLens (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree we should follow RS per NPOV; as an aside, there is no contradiction if 2E is defined as say "gifted + having a neurodivergent disability (that affects learning, academic/job performance etc.)". We might need to change the wording in the lead of Twice exceptional if article body & sources so indicate. Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 22:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

A user proposed removing this illustration. I prefer articles with illustrations and I think this one is suitable, and I would like to keep it.

It is from 2019 so is not AI, by the way. The artist is user:MissLunaRose12 who identifies as autistic, and says on their user page that their contributions at commons:Special:ListFiles/MissLunaRose12 are autistic art. Thoughts from others? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• I suggest keeping the image as it helps the reader understand the core idea of the neurodiversity paradigm better (that humans are different and that that is to be respected/celebrated). LogicalLens (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• I suggest removing the image because it does not meet MOS:IMAGEREL. It does not "serve as an important illustrative aid", and it does not "look like what [it is] meant to illustrate". Remember that "not every article needs images". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I see three questions here:

1. What kind of illustration (if any) is appropriate? e.g. in Anxiety, editors chose art dealing with the subject.

2. Of what thing specifically? e.g. for above, The Scream.

3. Is that thing adequately depicted by a particular image (does it look like what it's meant to illustrate)? e.g. for above, this is a good reproduction.

The first two points are partly up to editorial discretion, and all three fall under MOS:IMAGEREL. Breaking it down, (1) art about neurodiversity by a neurodivergent person seems quite appropriate given the term's history. (2) The work in question imo illustrates the topic well, per User:LogicalLens and for the same reasons that the image at our bipolar article does. (3) Image in question accurately depicts said work. Hence keep. --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 23:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Bit more on editorial discretion re points 1 and 2: For articles about human experiences such as disability and emotion, we often see a local consensus that illustrations enrich the article, e.g. Bipolar disorder (which uses art), OCD (diagram), Boredom (photo). Sometimes editors choose art by people who have experienced the condition, e.g. the textile art in Schizophrenia. Such art "grapples with a complex human experience" (to quote the caption under The Scream at Anxiety) and thus is seen to "serve as an important illustrative aid" (MOS:IMAGEREL). --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 00:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)