tl;dr

We're considering modifying our neurodiversity rule and want the community's input. We're particularly worried about alienating those who rely on this community specifically because neurodiversity hasn't been allowed here.

A Little Background

A few years ago, we set a rule disallowing the discussion of neurodiversity on /r/adhd. At the time, a majority of the neurodiversity discourse that we saw was heavily toxic and centered around "depathologizing" mental disorders, denying the inherent harms and asserting that they're neutral—even beneficial — differences.

There has also been anti-"neurotypical" bigotry—claims that neurotypical people are doomed to lead boring, joyless lives, that they're incapable of creativity, and other such nonsense. On top of this, many neurodiversity proponents have supported the idea that our disorders make us fundamentally different from, and even incompatible with, everyone else.

Those who spoke out against this rhetoric, trying to ensure that their own experiences weren't erased, were frequently publicly attacked and even doxxed. We found this ideology and behavior appalling and directly opposed to our own values, so we strove to distance this community from it.

Neurodiversity Today

Neurodiversity has exploded in popularity. For many, it's lost its association with that toxicity. They're not even aware that there is a movement and understand it to just be a way to reference all people with mental disorders. It's discussed and used in education, academic research, workplaces, and disability law and policy in the UN and around the world. Toxic positivity, disorder/disability denial, etc. are still issues, particularly in online communities, but it seems to be changing.

What Does This Mean For /r/adhd?

We know that many people hate this rule. They feel alienated and excluded by it because they've adopted it as a part of their identity, and they feel that the neurodiversity rule is a rejection of who they are.

At the same time, many /r/adhd users feel alienated and excluded by pro-neurodiversity spaces because of the frequency with which their experiences with the harms inflicted by their disorders are erased and denied. We've heard from so many people, both publicly and in modmail, how our current stance has made /r/adhd the only place they feel safe and comfortable talking about their experiences.

What we'd like to do is try to find a middle ground. We're considering allowing some discussion of neurodiversity while continuing to keep out the toxic positivity, bigotry, and anti-neurotypical rhetoric.

Given the impact that these changes might have, we wanted to see how the community feels. Is this something the community wants? Or is it entirely intolerable? We genuinely want to know.

Proposed Changes

• Allowing some uses of the word "neurodiversity", because it's becoming more widely used in academic and legal contexts
• Disallowing the use of "neurotypical" and continuing to disallow "neurodivergent"
  • "Neurotypical" is frequently hurled as an insult and slur in disagreements in our community, others on reddit, twitter, etc.
  • "Neurotypical and "neurodivergent" are both used in contexts that reinforce our alienation and isolation from society and when asserting ADHD/neurodiversity superiority, i.e. claims that people with ADHD are responsible for all human innovation; that "neurotypical" people must be dull and boring and joyless and incapable of greatness.

What's Not Changing

• Toxic positivity and pseudoscience will still be forbidden, e.g.
  • claiming ADHD is a gift or the next stage of human evolution
  • the hunter-gatherer hypothesis
  • ADHD is only bad because society
    • Clarification: We have always allowed critiques of society and societal structures, particularly in the context of disabled peoples' experiences. We have never denied the harms caused by society. What we don't allow is the claim that society is the sole source of our disability. Many aspects of ADHD and other disorders are inherently and directly disabling for many people irrespective of societal context. Denying that is erasure that will not be tolerated.
• Disorder and disability denial will still be forbidden
  • Neurodiversity, as Judy Singer originally conceived it, is the recognition that diversity of mental/cognitive abilities and experiences exist.
  • Just as the concept of biodiversity (on which neurodiversity was modeled) does not say that nature in its infinite variation is always good or benevolent, neurodiversity likewise does not say that every mental configuration is beneficial: it explicitly acknowledges that some are clearly disorders that inflict harm and suffering or impair one's ability to live independently, work, and care for themselves.
  • Neurodiversity is inherently a pro-disability movement. The whole point is ensuring that people with mental disorders have their dignity as human beings respected and the right to access the supports and treatment they need to live the kind of life they want and meaningfully participate in society.
  • Advocating for eliminating the disorder and disability framing of mental disorders erases the experiences of millions of people and undermines all the work that's been done to ensure our rights and accommodations. It is misguided, completely lacking in empathy, and not based in legitimate science.

That's It, Folks

We sincerely want to hear what everyone thinks about these changes, whether we've overlooked something, and any suggestions, modifications, or concerns you have. We're particularly worried about active users of the community who are here because of our current neurodiversity stance, and we want to make sure that this community continues to provide space for you. We probably won't be able to reply to everyone, but we will read every reply this thread gets.

If you've gotten this far, thank you so much for reading. Love y'all.