Vox Meditantis

The fight over how society views neurological differences has reached a tipping point. What began as a grassroots movement led by autistic self-advocates in the 1990s has now exploded into academic discourse, fundamentally challenging how we understand disability, difference, and human worth^[1][10]. Yet this isn’t merely an abstract philosophical debate—it’s a struggle that affects one in five people globally and exposes deep fissures in how medical professionals, researchers, and academics approach neurological diversity^[19]. The stakes couldn’t be higher: whether we pathologise and seek to “fix” neurological differences, or whether we recognise them as natural variations deserving of accommodation and respect.

What Is the Neurodiversity Movement?

The neurodiversity movement emerged from the simple yet revolutionary idea that neurological differences shouldn’t be viewed as defects requiring correction. Coined by Australian sociologist Judy Singer in her 1998 master’s thesis, the term “neurodiversity” describes the natural diversity of human brain function—encompassing autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other neurological variations^[1][2]. But this was never merely an academic exercise.

The movement’s roots trace back to Jim Sinclair‘s powerful 1993 speech, “Don’t Mourn for Us,” delivered at an autism conference in Toronto^[3][18]. Sinclair’s message was stark and uncompromising: “You didn’t lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence”^[3]. This wasn’t gentle diplomacy—it was a direct challenge to parents and professionals who viewed autism as a tragedy to be cured.

The internet proved crucial in amplifying these voices. Early online forums and listservs allowed neurodivergent people to connect, organise, and develop core principles that championed rights and autonomy^[1]. By 2006, the movement had grown sufficiently to make “Celebrating Neurodiversity” the central theme of Autistic Pride Day^[18]. What began as scattered voices of dissent had become a coordinated social justice movement.

The neurodiversity paradigm fundamentally argues that neurological differences exist on a spectrum of natural human variation, similar to biodiversity in nature^[1][2]. It rejects the assumption that “typical” equals “better” and instead advocates for a society that accommodates rather than eliminates neurological differences. This is particularly significant when we consider that neurodivergent people constitute roughly 20% of the global population—hardly a marginal minority deserving of medical intervention^[19].

The Medical Model: Pathology and “Fixing” Difference

The medical model represents the traditional approach to disability—one that views neurological differences as disorders requiring diagnosis, treatment, and hopefully, cure^[4][6]. Under this framework, autism, ADHD, and other neurological variations are inherently problematic conditions that prevent individuals from achieving “normal” functioning.

This model employs language that reveals its fundamental assumptions. Terms like “deficit,” “disorder,” “dysfunction,” and “restricted” dominate medical discourse about neurodivergent people^[4][14]. The focus remains squarely on what’s “wrong” with the individual—their inability to communicate in typical ways, their sensory sensitivities, their different social behaviours^[6][14].

The medical model’s approach seems logical enough: identify the problem, develop interventions, measure outcomes. Yet this seemingly objective framework carries profound implications for how neurodivergent people experience the world. When your fundamental way of being is classified as pathological, when your natural responses are labelled as symptoms, the message becomes unmistakable: you are broken and need fixing^[6].

Critics argue this approach creates “low expectations and leads to people losing independence, choice and control in their lives”^[6]. Rather than asking what accommodations might help a neurodivergent person thrive, the medical model asks how the person can be changed to fit existing systems.

The Social Model: Disability as Societal Failure

The social model flips this script entirely. Developed by physically disabled advocates in the UK, it distinguishes between impairment (biological differences) and disability (barriers created by society)^[6][13]. A wheelchair user isn’t disabled by their inability to walk—they’re disabled by stairs, narrow doorways, and inaccessible transport^[6].

Applied to neurodiversity, the social model suggests that autistic people aren’t inherently disabled by their autism. They’re disabled by environments that assault their senses, communication expectations that don’t account for their differences, and educational systems designed exclusively for neurotypical learners^[12][13].

This perspective transforms how we understand intervention. Rather than focusing solely on changing the individual, the social model demands we examine and modify the environments, attitudes, and systems that create barriers^[12]. It’s a profoundly political stance—one that places responsibility on society rather than individuals.

Monique Craine from NeuroDivergent Matters articulates this shift powerfully: “Under the medical model, we internalise our difficulties and make them about the individual and how they can’t do things other people can”^[12]. The social model offers an alternative narrative—one where difference isn’t deficit.

Similarities and Differences: Finding Middle Ground

Both models struggle with the reality that neurological differences can create genuine challenges. Neither denies that some neurodivergent people require support, accommodations, or interventions. The critical difference lies in where they locate the source of disability and what solutions they propose.

The medical model excels at developing specific interventions and understanding biological mechanisms. Its rigorous diagnostic frameworks can help identify individuals who need support. Yet its pathology-focused language and cure-oriented goals often alienate the very people it aims to help^[4].

The social model’s strength lies in its recognition that many barriers facing neurodivergent people are artificial—created by inflexible systems rather than inherent limitations. However, critics argue that a strict social model approach risks dismissing real functional challenges that some individuals face^[4][13].

Increasingly, scholars advocate for middle-ground approaches that acknowledge both individual characteristics and environmental factors^[4]. Patrick Dwyer and other researchers suggest that disability emerges from the interaction between personal traits and social contexts—neither purely medical nor purely social, but fundamentally relational^[4].

The Academic Divide: When Paradigms Collide

This philosophical divide has created genuine tensions within academic and clinical communities. The neurodiversity movement poses uncomfortable questions about research priorities, intervention goals, and professional expertise itself^[15].

Some researchers embrace neurodiversity perspectives, recognising their potential to reduce stigma and improve support for neurodivergent people^[4]. Lawrence Fung at Stanford Medicine argues that neurological differences can constitute “competitive advantages” in medical practice, citing autistic attention to detail as beneficial for diagnosis^[19].

Yet others resist what they perceive as anti-scientific sentiment. The movement’s emphasis on lived experience over professional expertise challenges traditional academic hierarchies^[15]. When neurodivergent people claim authority over their own experiences, it necessarily diminishes the exclusive expertise of non-neurodivergent researchers and clinicians.

The stakes extend beyond academic turf wars. Research priorities shape funding decisions, intervention development, and ultimately, how neurodivergent people are treated in schools, workplaces, and healthcare settings^[8]. If researchers focus primarily on identifying deficits and developing “fixes,” resources flow toward normalization efforts. If they embrace neurodiversity perspectives, attention shifts toward accommodation and environmental modification.

Damian Milton notes the complexity of these debates, observing that the neurodiversity movement has been criticised “for being too aligned to a medical model, too aligned to (a simplistic mischaracterisation of) a social model”^[7]. Such contradictory criticisms suggest that opponents may be attacking caricatures rather than engaging with the movement’s actual complexity.

The Human Cost of Professional Divisions

These aren’t merely academic debates—they have real consequences for real people. Sue Rubin, a non-speaking autistic person, articulates the complexity many neurodivergent people face: “The possibility that I could be very autistic for the rest of my life always upsets me. Therefore, when people talk about a cure I actually love to hear it”^[9].

Rubin’s perspective illustrates how the divide between “cure” and “acceptance” positions can oversimplify individual experiences. Some neurodivergent people do want interventions that reduce their challenges, whilst others reject the pathology paradigm entirely. Professional disagreements about theoretical frameworks can obscure this diversity of perspectives.

The academic system itself presents barriers for neurodivergent researchers and practitioners. The emphasis on productivity, networking, and traditional communication styles can exclude precisely those voices most qualified to speak about neurodivergent experiences^[8]. This creates a vicious cycle where research about neurodivergent people continues to be dominated by neurotypical perspectives.

Towards Genuine Inclusion

The neurodiversity movement has fundamentally changed how we think about neurological difference. It has challenged medical orthodoxy, expanded our understanding of human diversity, and given voice to previously marginalised communities. Yet its ultimate success will be measured not by academic acceptance, but by practical changes that improve neurodivergent people’s lives.

The path forward requires moving beyond simplistic either-or frameworks. We need approaches that respect individual choice about identity and intervention whilst challenging systemic barriers to inclusion. This means funding research that prioritises neurodivergent people’s own goals rather than professional assumptions about what needs “fixing.” It means developing educational and workplace practices that accommodate cognitive diversity rather than demanding conformity.

Most importantly, it requires recognising that neurodivergent people themselves are the ultimate authorities on their experiences. Professional expertise has value, but it cannot substitute for lived experience. The neurodiversity movement’s greatest contribution may be its insistence that those most affected by policies and practices must have decisive voices in shaping them.

The battle for neurodiversity acceptance isn’t just about changing academic paradigms—it’s about creating a society that values human diversity in all its forms. That’s a goal worth fighting for.

Bob Lynn | © 2025 Vox Meditantis. All rights reserved.

Photo by Peter Burdon on Unsplash

References:
[1] Neurodiversity – Wikipedia
[2] What is Neurodiversity
[3] Jim Sinclair (activist) – Wikipedia
[4] The Neurodiversity Approach(es): What Are They and What Do They …
[5] Should Neurodiversity Be Considered a Disability? – Inclusive Boards
[6] Social Model vs Medical Model of disability
[7] Disagreeing over neurodiversity | BPS – British Psychological Society
[8] Navigating Academia as Neurodivergent Researchers: Promoting …
[9] Acceptance versus cure – CNN Programs – Presents
[10] The neurodiversity movement – National Autistic Society
[11] What do “neurodiverse” and “neurodivergent” mean? | DO-IT
[12] Neurodiversity and the Social Model of Disability
[13] The Social Model and Neurodiversity – Autistic Scholar
[14] The Medical VS Social Model of Disability – Sociability app
[15] Weighing In : Academic Writers on Neurodiversity – ScienceOpen
[16] What is neurodiversity? – Harvard Health
[17] MEDICAL MODEL VS SOCIAL MODEL – NeuroDiverCity
[18] A Timeline of the Neurodiversity Movement – Beyond Akeela
[19] What does it mean to be neurodiverse in medicine?
[20] A brief history of “Neurodiversity” – Cognassist
[21] Neurodiversity: A Brief History
[22] Jim Sinclair – Nonbinary Wiki
[23] In Defense Of The Medical Model Of Neurodiversity – Forbes
[24] Debate: Neurodiversity, autism and healthcare – Green – 2023
[25] Debate: Neurodiversity, autism and healthcare – PubMed
[26] A student’s perspective: Understanding and valuing neurodivergence
[27] On neurodiversity in the PhD – the silence is deafening?
[28] Higher education needs to get to grips with the language … – Wonkhe
[29] Neurodiversity in Academia: The Autistic advantage in qualitative …
[30] Are universities asking too much of an academic class full of …
[31] Is “Neurodiversity” the Proper Nomenclature for Mental Health …
[32] [PDF] The Neurodiversity Movement: A Tipping Point – AchieveAbility
[33] Navigating Neurodiversity: Unraveling the Superpower Debate
[34] Examining the interconnections between physical health, mental …
[35] The positive impact of identity-affirming mental health treatment for …
[36] View of Review of Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm …
[37] Debating Neurodiversity – Janine Booth
[38] Neurodiversity and mental health – NHS Dorset
[39] ‘Neurodiversity in doctors and its impact on their profession’
[40] Neurodiversity and disability: what is at stake? – Medical Humanities
[41] Autistic Acceptance vs. Autism Awareness – NeuroClastic
[42] The Neurodiversity (ND) Profiling Tool – Portsmouth Local Offer