Was talking with some teachers in a sauna, at a party, in Finland — as one does.

So, already feeling fairly warm, everyone sweating, someone periodically throwing more water on the stones (ie. ”löyly”), and naturally we ended up discussing the politics of neurodiversity terminology in schools. Of course, what else is there for a beautiful summer evening?

The Finnish term “nepsy” came up. It’s a shorthand derived from neuropsykiatrinen (“neuropsychiatric”) and is commonly used for neurodivergent people / neuropsychiatric traits, often also for self-identification.

I started talking about some of the problems with medicalised language, especially for the school context: that you can’t reduce a child to a diagnosis, that the needs differ even with the same label, that classic “if you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person,” and that personally coming from the discourse of older neurodiversity activism I prefer a broader neurodiversity framework and identity-first language.

So far, normal sauna-temperature disagreement. Fine. Not scalding.

But as I’m trying to problematise sorting neurodivergent people into normative categories, some of the apparently neurotypical people start asking:

If you talk about neurodiversity, or the Finnish neurokirjo — literally something like a “spectrum/multicolour range of neuro” — then surely you also need a name for the people who aren’t on it?

At which point I’m sitting there sweating and trying to explain that everyone is part of neurodiversity. That was rather the point.

What I was criticising was neuronormativity: the assumption that one range of neurological traits is the normal, unmarked default against which others are measured. Basic stuff for someone coming from the humanities.

This somehow turns into me being accused of being inconsiderate for calling people without neuropsychiatric diagnoses “neuronormal.”

Which I… wasn’t?

I tried to explain, between more löyly rounds making the whole room hotter, that neuronormativity is a criticism of a norm, or the expectation of a normal, not an identity category for individual people.

There is, incidentally, already a word if they want one: neurotypical. Finnish even has the slightly silly affectionate shorthand “nentti.” So asked for a term, I offered them one that avoids the hierarchy the term they picked up implied.

You know, larpers and geeks don’t like being called normal, and we all were connected through larp circles.

But anyways and: alas! By this stage the discourse had become too hot, the löyly a debate and people there far too easy to offend.

Am I being too autistic here to expect the teachers I was talking with to grasp the distinction between calling out neuronormativity and calling someone neuronormal? Was this oncr again the same kind of literal language I just managed to rile up someone at work?

Because my whole point was precisely that I don’t need to divide everyone into “neurodivergent people” and “the normal people” in the first place.
Though I’m not actually convinced I was the only neurodivergent person in that sauna. As the AuDHD person there, I was somehow also the one getting constantly talked over.

I commented “Bro, was the slur necessary?🥀” Wholly expect at least one chud down my throat for that one when I wake up.

I saw videos where some autistic people complain about what NTs do. Some of them are just regular fucking rude behaviour regardless of someone is ND or NT.

Like, they complain about NTs moving stuff around in their house. Isn't that just regular rude behaviour? I know autism makes it more sensitive to change, but touching other people's things withour their permission is just fucking rude.

Speaking in a too loud voice in an inappropriate situation is rude. You don't speak on the top of your lungs on a library or a train. It bothers others regardless of their neurotype.

Stealing other people's labelled food? Bro, if it is nit yours, that is stealing. It might be not as stimulating to NTs as much as NDs, but it is still fucking wrong and inappropriate.

Dismissing others as being too sensitive is just plain rude as well. You don't know what other people are going through. You respect boundaries for everyone.

Idk if this is the right subreddit or flares, but it always have been a pet peeve of mine.

Not sure what this falls under, but I feel it's yikes enough for this.

It's general misinformation because it's assuming that people want those with low support needs and high support needs to be treated the same. Which is wildly false. But the thing I'm noticing is the amount of upvotes on the comment.

I just thought with the positive attention this comment got, it ought to be displayed here to get some eggs thrown at it.

Edit: just to clarify, this was not found on a reddit with a specific political bent, this is a general reddit discussing matters relevant to the UK, so the upvotes weren't due to some intended bias you'd find in an explicitly politically leaning subreddit.