The History of Neurodiversity

Many of the ideas central to neurodiversity-affirming care — self-determination, independent living, community participation, civil rights, accommodations, and the right of disabled people to speak for themselves — were developed through decades of disability activism. 

To trace the history of neurodiversity, it is necessary to follow the threads backward: through the online forums of the 1990s into the adult self-advocacy networks of the 1980s, through the courtrooms and federal buildings of the 1970s, and into the broader civil rights movements that established the premise underlying all of it — that the people most affected by a system are the ones best positioned to describe what needs to change.

A Foundation Built by Other Movements

The disability rights movement built directly upon the organizing strategies of the Civil Rights Movement — sit-ins, direct action, coalition-building, legal pressure — and from the feminist movement's insistence that personal experiences of exclusion are not private failures, but evidence of how systems are arranged.^1,2 Disability activists recognized a premise shared across these struggles: that society treated some people's full participation in society as optional, and changing that required both cultural and legal force.

The urgency became visible after World War II and intensified following the Vietnam War, when thousands of veterans returned home with missing limbs, spinal cord injuries, and psychological trauma to discover the country they had fought for was simply not built for them.¹ Stores, workplaces, bathrooms, public transit — none of it had been designed with disabled people in mind. Organizations like the Paralyzed Veterans of America, founded in 1947, joined with local groups to establish the nation's first architectural standards for "barrier-free" buildings, creating the earliest formal acknowledgment that physical environments needed to accommodate disabled people.^3,4

By the 1970s, mass transit remained largely inaccessible for wheelchair users. Transit authorities argued that retrofitting buses and trains with mechanical lifts was cost prohibitive.⁵ Disabled activists argued that a government able to send citizens to war could afford to let them cross the street. On July 5–6, 1978, nineteen disabled activists from Denver's Atlantis Community — later known as the Gang of 19 — surrounded two city buses at the intersection of Colfax and Broadway, chanting "We will ride!" and refusing to move for 24 hours until the transit authority agreed to make part of its fleet wheelchair-accessible.^6-8 Following the protest, a third of Regional Transportation District buses were retrofitted with lifts.^7,8

This core group, led by organizer Wade Blank and the Atlantis Community, went on to found ADAPT — Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit — whose members spent the 1980s rolling their wheelchairs into intersections, chaining themselves to bus axles, and occupying transit offices nationwide.^5,6 The cumulative effect of this sustained direct action was a federal policy shift: transit systems receiving federal funding would be required to provide full physical accessibility.⁹ More broadly, these actions were establishing a reframe that would carry through every movement that followed — the barriers were not inside disabled people; they were built into the systems, buildings, and policies surrounding them.

At the same time, the realities of life inside state institutions were finally coming to light. This shift in public awareness was accelerated by the Community Mental Health Act of 1963, which redirected federal funding away from large psychiatric hospitals and toward community-based care centers.^10,11 The groundwork for that transition had been laid decades earlier by World War II conscientious objectors, who used their experiences as psychiatric attendants to document the systemic abuse and neglect within the facilities.¹² A wave of investigative journalism amplified these firsthand accounts, exposing the reality of the asylum system to the wider American public.^13,14

One of the most widely known examples was Willowbrook State School on Staten Island.¹⁵ In early 1972, journalist Geraldo Rivera entered the facility using a key secretly provided by a staff physician and broadcast what he found on ABC: children left naked, unwashed, and without meaningful human contact.¹⁶ Rivera's footage also revealed that researchers had deliberately infected residents with hepatitis without their knowledge or consent.^15,17 The public response accelerated institutional reform, and a 1975 federal consent decree required New York to reduce Willowbrook's population and develop community-based alternatives.¹⁸ The case became a landmark in shifting both public understanding and legal standards around institutionalization, demonstrating that the absence of community infrastructure was not a neutral oversight but a condition with real human consequences.¹⁵

The legal challenge to institutionalization reached the Supreme Court decades later through Olmstead v. L.C.¹⁹ Lois Curtis, an artist with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and Elaine Wilson had both been confined in a Georgia psychiatric hospital long after their own doctors determined they were ready to live in the community. Those readiness assessments had no practical effect within the existing system, because there was no mechanism requiring the state to act on them. On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that under Title II of the ADA, unjustified institutionalization constitutes discrimination, and that states are required to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to a person's needs.¹⁹ The ruling gave legal force to what the independent living movement had been arguing since the 1970s: that segregation from community life is not a neutral treatment option but a rights violation.

The feminist movement contributed something equally important to this story, though it is easy to underestimate. The feminist insistence that the personal is political — that a person's private experience of exclusion or difficulty is not a personal failing but a signal about how systems are arranged — became central to how disability activists began framing their own demands.^2,20 When Judy Heumann, who had contracted polio as a child and used a wheelchair, was denied a teaching license by the New York City Board of Education on the grounds that her wheelchair was a "fire hazard," she did not treat that as a private limitation. She sued, won, and co-founded Disabled in Action (DIA) in New York City in 1970.^22,23 In 1972, Heumann and eighty DIA activists staged a sit-in on Madison Avenue in Manhattan after President Richard Nixon vetoed the Rehabilitation Act of 1972.²¹ Later that month, DIA forged a coalition with the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the National Paraplegia Foundation, and together they marched on Washington, D.C. and staged a united sit-in at the Lincoln Memorial.^1,21 This unified pressure forced disability rights into the national spotlight, ultimately leading Congress to pass the revised Rehabilitation Act of 1973.²⁴ Section 504 of that act banned disability discrimination in any federally funded program — the first federal civil rights protection specifically covering disabled people — but the regulations needed to enforce it were never issued.^24,25 For four years, the law existed without teeth.²⁵

In April 1977, disabled activists occupied federal buildings in ten cities simultaneously to force the issue.²⁵ The San Francisco sit-in included roughly 100 to 150 activists, led by Heumann and Kitty Cone, occupying the San Francisco Federal Building for 26 days — the longest occupation of a federal building in American history — until Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano signed the regulations on April 28, 1977.^25,26 Sustaining that occupation required outside support. Authorities cut phone lines and tried to block food deliveries, hoping to make the protest untenable.²⁶ Brad Lomax, a wheelchair user and member of the Black Panther Party's Washington, D.C. chapter, helped organize the sit-in and was among those inside.²⁷ The Panthers, under the leadership of Huey P. Newton and Elaine Brown, delivered hot meals to protesters every day of the occupation.^{27, 28} The Gay Men's Butterfly Brigade smuggled in walkie-talkies so activists could communicate with family, friends, and other organizers.^26,27 The United Farm Workers supplied food and medical resources.²⁶

This support demonstrated that disability rights, racial justice, and economic justice were interconnected — a relationship that would later become the formal foundation of the Disability Justice framework. Disability Justice, developed by organizers including Mia Mingus, Lydia X. Z. Brown, and the performance project Sins Invalid, extended the analysis of the disability rights movement to account for how disability intersects with race, class, gender, and other axes of structural inequality, recognizing that the people facing the most significant barriers were often those navigating multiple systems simultaneously. ^28-31

Understanding these events matters for neurodivergent people today, because the systems that determined who received care, what kind, and who had any say in the matter are not so distant. Many of the adults seeking support today grew up in or adjacent to those systems. The history is personal.

Nothing About Us Without Us

Ed Roberts arrived at the same core insight from his own experience. After contracting polio, Roberts became the first severely disabled student admitted to UC Berkeley, but because no dormitory could accommodate his iron lung, he initially lived in the campus hospital.^1,32 Rather than accepting that arrangement as fixed, Roberts and other disabled students organized as the Rolling Quads, collectively pushing for curb cuts, ramps, accessible transportation, and personal assistance services.³³ In 1972, they opened the first Center for Independent Living in Berkeley, a peer-run organization built on the principle that disabled people should direct their own care and lives, with professional support if needed.³⁴ The independent living model represented a structural shift in how disability services were conceived: away from professional management of disabled people's lives and toward disabled people as the primary decision-makers about their own needs.³⁴

That principle was simultaneously taking shape in intellectual disability communities.³⁵ In 1968, a parent association in Sweden organized a conference under the banner "We speak for them," inviting young adults with intellectual disabilities to attend and discuss how society could better manage their leisure time.^36,37 The attendees rejected the agenda and produced their own demands: freedom to make daily decisions about when to sleep, eat, and go out; direct control over their own money; the right to socialize with non-disabled peers without chaperones; recognition as adults rather than perpetual children. The demands were straightforward on their surface, but they challenged the foundational assumption that had organized disability services for generations — that professionals and family members were better positioned than disabled people themselves to determine how disabled people should live.

The idea spread. In 1972, British activists organized the "Our Life" conference, where adults with learning disabilities publicly named the changes they wanted in residential care and training centers.³⁶ In November 1973, the British Columbia ARC hosted North America's first convention for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.^36,37 A delegation from the Fairview Hospital and Training Center in Salem, Oregon attended and identified a structural gap: the convention had been organized and managed entirely by non-disabled professionals, with disabled attendees present but not in control of any aspect of the event.^36,38 The Oregon delegates went home and organized their own.³⁸

On October 5–6, 1974, they held a convention planned entirely by people with disabilities, and they chose the name People First when one participant said he simply wanted to be known as a person first, not by a diagnostic label.^36,38 The organization they built established a structural model that Autism Network International and, later, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network would adopt directly: leadership and decision-making held by the people the organization represents, with professionals and family members in an advisory and support role only.^39,40 The principle "Nothing About Us Without Us" was being practiced before it had a name.⁴¹

The Social Model of Disability

While these events were unfolding in the United States, activists in the United Kingdom were developing a conceptual framework that would give the neurodiversity movement much of its intellectual foundation. For most of the twentieth century, disability was understood primarily as a problem inside a person. Medical thinking focused on identifying what was wrong, measuring the gap between a disabled person and a "normal" standard, and devising ways to close it.⁴² Paul Hunt, a disabled activist and writer in the UK, had spent years challenging that framing. In a 1966 essay, he argued that people with impairments were being economically and socially excluded by a society organized exclusively around able-bodied productivity, and that this exclusion was not incidental but structural.⁴³ In 1972, Hunt and others founded the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS).⁴⁴

In November 1975, following a meeting with the Disability Alliance, UPIAS published Fundamental Principles of Disability, which introduced a distinction that reoriented the field.⁴⁴ Impairment, they argued, referred to the physical condition: lacking a limb, or having an organ or mechanism of the body that functioned differently. Disability referred to something else entirely: the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a society organized without regard for people with impairments.⁴⁴ The problem was not only inside the person. A significant part of it was in the world around them.

In 1983, disabled academic Mike Oliver gave this framework a name: the Social Model of Disability.⁴⁵ His 1990 book The Politics of Disablement expanded it further, helping shift disability language from individual tragedy toward civil rights, politics, and structural change. The Social Model changed the central question from what is wrong with this person to what is happening around this person that is creating or compounding their difficulty.⁴² The example that illustrates it most cleanly is a staircase: a wheelchair user may have a physical impairment, but the stairs are what prevent them from entering the building. The person has not changed. The environment has. Add a ramp, and the same person participates fully. The impairment remains; the disabling barrier is removed.

This is not a framework that denies difficulty or pretends that neurological or physical differences do not create real challenges. It holds two things true at the same time. A person can have a genuine difference in how their brain processes the world. And the environment around that person can either ease those challenges or intensify them significantly.

When advocates and researchers later began applying Social Model thinking to cognitive, sensory, communication, attentional, and social environments, the questions it generated were clarifying.^46,47

• Which of the difficulties a neurodivergent person experiences come from their neurological difference itself?

• And which are created or amplified by an environment that was never designed with them in mind?

Rigid schedules, sensory environments that overwhelm, timed examinations, open-plan offices, and communication expectations built entirely around neurotypical patterns all create barriers, and those barriers are modifiable in ways that a person's neurology is not.⁴⁶

The Social Model spread beyond the UK. Groups like the Disabled People's Direct Action Network in Britain blockaded streets and chained themselves to buses through the 1980s and early 1990s, helping push Parliament to pass the Disability Discrimination Act on November 8, 1995, later absorbed into the broader Equality Act of 2010.^48-50 The United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on December 13, 2006, formally embedding the Social Model's core insight into international law: that disability arises from the interaction between a person's impairment and an unaccommodating society.⁵¹ In the United States, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990, at which point autism was formally recognized as a distinct protected disability category.^52,53 A 2004 reauthorization mandated individualized education plans addressing diverse learning styles and sensory needs.⁵⁴

ADHD and Autism's History

Autism and ADHD occupy far more of this history than any other neurotype, and the reason is largely structural.^46,55 They were the categories that had diagnostic infrastructure, research funding, school and workplace policy, and organized adult communities early enough to build a public record.⁴⁶ For many people, they are also the doors that happen to be open. Someone comes looking for support around attention, or around sensory overwhelm, and finds in the process a vocabulary that reaches further than the label that brought them in — words for processing differences, for exhaustion, for regulation, for the parts of their experience no one had previously named.

That is not a correction to what they came in with. It is a sign of how narrow the available language has been. When only two categories are well described, everyone's experience gets routed through them, and needs that fall outside those two are left without terms, without services, and often without acknowledgment that they exist at all. These two histories are traced closely here for that reason — not because they are the whole of neurodiversity, but because they are where the record is thickest, and following them closely shows how a category gets built, who builds it, and who is left waiting for one.

The Making of Autism

Autism as a category has been named, redefined, narrowed, and widened repeatedly across a little more than a century.^56,57 Each revision reflected the questions the surrounding institutions needed answered, and each one changed who counted. Through all of it, the people being described were not consulted.

The word autism came from the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, who coined it in 1908 and elaborated it in a 1911 paper on schizophrenia, a condition he had also named.⁵⁷,⁵⁸ It derives from the Greek autos, meaning self.⁵⁷ For Bleuler, autistic thinking described a retreat into an interior world so absorbing that it displaced shared reality.⁵⁸ Through the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, clinicians across Europe and Britain used the term that way — as a feature of psychotic conditions rather than a condition of its own.

The modern framework took shape through the independent work of two physicians who never read each other. In 1943, Leo Kanner, in Baltimore, published "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact," describing eleven children and drawing in part on a thirty-three-page account written in 1938 by the father of a patient named Donald.^59,60 Kanner argued that what he was seeing was a distinct condition present from birth. A year later, in Vienna, Hans Asperger described a group of children he characterized as having autistic psychopathy, noting specialized interests, strong verbal intelligence, unusual memory, and mechanical or mathematical talent. He called them little professors and worked on educational methods suited to them.⁶¹ Both men distinguished their patients from children then labeled intellectually disabled — a distinction that carried enormous weight, because in wartime Austria the category a child was placed in could determine whether they fell under Nazi eugenics programs.⁶²

The record on Asperger himself was revised much later. Archival research published in 2018 by Herwig Czech and by Edith Sheffer established that he publicly endorsed race hygiene policies including forced sterilization, and that he referred children to Vienna's Am Spiegelgrund clinic, a site of the child euthanasia program.^62,63 The account of Asperger as a physician quietly shielding his patients does not survive that evidence. The children he described as promising were sorted away from children he described in far harsher terms, and the sorting had consequences. For a framework built on the value of all neurological variation, that history is not a footnote, and it is the central reason advocates and community members have pressed to retire his name from everyday use and personal identity.^62,63

In the decades after 1943, explanation in the United States drifted away from biology.⁶⁴ Kanner had recorded impressions of the parents he met, and those impressions were taken up by others and built into a full causal theory — most influentially by the psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim, whose 1967 book The Empty Fortress popularized the phrase "refrigerator mother."^59,65 For roughly two decades, families were told that a mother's coldness had produced her child's autism.⁶⁴ The person most responsible for dismantling that idea was Bernard Rimland, a research psychologist whose own son was autistic and who had been given that explanation about his wife.⁶⁴ His 1964 book Infantile Autism made the case for neurobiological accounts over psychoanalytic ones, and he went on to build the first standardized diagnostic checklist and to found advocacy organizations.⁶⁶ Later in his career, Rimland promoted the claim that vaccines cause autism, which research has thoroughly disproven.^64,67

While the refrigerator mother argument played out in the United States, the meaning of autism was being rewritten in Britain by deinstitutionalization and the research it required. The Mental Health Act of 1959 shifted care toward community-based models.⁶⁸ As children who would previously have been institutionalized entered public schools, the state needed a vocabulary to describe them. Psychiatric epidemiology filled that gap.⁵⁶ In anticipation of the law, the Medical Research Council had established its Social Psychiatry Research Unit at the Maudsley Hospital in 1958. The unit's method was to evaluate children on observable behavior rather than on psychoanalytic assumptions about their inner lives.⁵⁶ In 1966, Victor Lotter surveyed children aged eight to ten in Middlesex using behavioral criteria and arrived at a prevalence estimate of 4.5 per 10,000.⁶⁹ In 1977, Michael Rutter published twin studies indicating that identical twins were far more likely than fraternal twins to share the trait, establishing a strong hereditary component.⁷⁰ Additionally, he proposed that when milder social and language differences were counted, a broader spectrum emerged.⁵⁶ This emphasis on observable, reproducible measures led eventually to standardized instruments such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.⁷¹

The infrastructure of deinstitutionalization drove the change as much as science did. The number of educational psychologists employed by British local authorities rose from 375 in 1967 to 638 in 1972 and past a thousand by 1983, and a 1972 government inquiry into speech therapy found hundreds of thousands of people, most of them children, in need of services.^56,7 Parents organized in parallel: the Society for Autistic Children, founded in London in 1962, established its own schools and campaigned to have the Ministry of Education recognize all autistic children as educable.^56,73 Sociologists including Gil Eyal have argued that this pattern explains much of the international variation in autism diagnosis.^74,75 Rates rose sharply in countries that closed their institutions and moved children into schools, and far less in countries such as France, where residential care continued.⁷⁴

The category kept widening. In 1979, Lorna Wing and Judith Gould worked from the Camberwell case register in London, screening the records of tens of thousands of children and narrowing to a smaller group registered with local health, education, or social services. Within that group they found a pattern that did not fit Kanner's narrow definition: a substantial number of children shared the same underlying differences while presenting very differently from one another, and only a minority matched Kanner's criteria.⁷⁶ From this they proposed what they called the triad of impairments — differences in social interaction, in verbal and non-verbal communication, and in what they termed social imagination, meaning flexible and abstract thinking.⁷⁶ Their vocabulary was the deficit vocabulary of the clinical literature of the period, and it is worth reading as such. What their study established, and what carried forward, is that these children belonged on a single continuum rather than in a narrow category. In 1981, Wing published a clinical account of what she named Asperger's syndrome, drawing on Asperger's 1944 paper, and was the first to argue that the children Kanner described and the children Asperger described belonged on that same spectrum.⁷⁷ In 1985, Simon Baron-Cohen, Alan Leslie, and Uta Frith proposed that autistic children lack a theory of mind — an ability to attribute mental states to others.⁷⁸ Frith separately developed an account she called weak central coherence.⁷⁹ These frameworks were enormously influential, and they located autism as a set of cognitive deficits inside the individual. They are also, precisely, the claims that autistic people would begin contesting a decade later.

The diagnostic manuals absorbed each of these shifts in turn. The first DSM, in 1952, classified children with autistic characteristics under childhood schizophrenia.⁸⁰ Infantile autism entered the DSM-III in 1980 as a distinct diagnosis, though the manual also included a category of residual infantile autism, reflecting an assumption that the condition resolved with age.⁸¹ The DSM-III-R replaced it with autistic disorder in 1987, a change that signaled growing recognition that autism persists across the lifespan.⁸² The DSM-IV in 1994 built its criteria directly on Wing and Gould's three domains and added Asperger's disorder and Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified alongside childhood disintegrative disorder and Rett syndrome, producing a set of categories that clinicians found difficult to tell apart in practice — particularly the line between social interaction and social communication, which proved too intertwined to separate reliably.⁸³ The DSM-5 in 2013 collapsed nearly all of them into a single diagnosis, autism spectrum disorder, folded the three domains into two, removed Asperger's syndrome, and introduced specifiers describing levels of support.⁸⁴ That consolidation was contested. One analysis estimated that a substantial share of people who met DSM-IV criteria would not meet the DSM-5 criteria, which for many families was not an academic question but a question of whether services would continue.⁸⁵

The prevalence figures follow the same pattern, and they are worth stating plainly because they are so often misread. Lotter's 1966 study found 4.5 autistic children per 10,000.⁶⁹ A 2006 study in the UK reported 116.1 per 10,000.⁸⁶ In the United States, CDC estimates moved from roughly 1 in 150 children in 2002 to 1 in 54 two decades later.^87,88 Researchers attribute the change primarily to broadened criteria, greater awareness, routine screening in pediatric practice, and the reclassification of children who would previously have been labeled differently or institutionalized.^74,88 A separate and entirely discredited explanation entered public discussion in 1998, when a paper in The Lancet claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in a sample of twelve children.⁸⁹ The paper was found to be fraudulent, and its lead author had been funded by lawyers suing vaccine manufacturers.⁹⁰ The journal retracted it in 2010.⁹¹ Large-scale studies since, including a Danish cohort of more than 650,000 children, have found no association.⁶⁷ The rising numbers track a changing category and a changing set of institutions, not a changing population.⁷⁴

What autism was, at any given moment, depended heavily on who was asking and why. That is the point this history shares with ADHD's, and it is the reason both eventually produced the same response from the people being described.

Autistic People Begin Describing Autism for Themselves

For most of the twentieth century, autism was described almost entirely by the researchers and clinicians studying it.⁵⁶ Autistic people themselves were largely absent from those accounts, assumed to lack the capacity to contribute, or simply not consulted. The medical model dominated: autism was framed through deficits, behavioral abnormalities, and the distance between autistic presentation and neurotypical norms.⁶⁴ Wing's spectrum model had genuinely improved the clinical picture, and it would later inform how the neurodiversity concept was framed.⁷⁶ But it was still a description produced from the outside.

One of the earliest windows into autistic self-advocacy came from Temple Grandin, whose 1986 memoir Emergence: Labeled Autistic was among the first widely read first-person accounts of autistic experience. Grandin described sensory overwhelm, social difference, and the interior texture of autistic life with a specificity that clinical literature of the time did not approach.⁹² Her framing still leaned toward overcoming and adapting — finding ways to succeed within a world built for neurotypical people — rather than questioning whether the world needed to adapt too. But her book demonstrated something foundational: that autistic people could describe their own experience at all, in their own words, for a general audience. Once that door was open, it did not close.

What transformed a single memoir into a movement was the internet. As online communication became widely accessible in the early 1990s, autistic people found one another across distances that had previously kept them isolated. They began doing something that had rarely been possible before: talking to each other, in spaces they controlled, about what their lives were like.

In 1992, Jim Sinclair, Kathy Lissner Grant, and Donna Williams founded ANI, the world's first advocacy organization created and run by autistic people.³⁹ The organization's founding premise was a direct challenge to what advocates called the pathology paradigm: the assumption that autism could only be understood through deficit and the need for correction or cure.⁹⁴ ANI argued that autistic people did not have to simply tolerate an environment built for someone else, because the environment could change.³⁹

A moment from the 1993 International Conference on Autism in Toronto captures how the conversation was already expanding beyond a single diagnosis. A non-autistic attendee with hydrocephalus approached ANI co-founder Kathy Grant and described the neurological and social similarities between his own experience and the autistic experience being discussed.³⁹ Grant's response — "Cousin!" — gave a name to something the community had already been noticing: that neurological difference extended beyond any single diagnosis, and that people with very different labels might recognize each other across those differences. Within ANI, "cousin" became a term for someone without an autism diagnosis who nonetheless experienced similar social, cognitive, or communication differences while navigating a neurotypical world.³⁹ This is worth pausing on, because it establishes that the underlying idea was cross-diagnostic years before any vocabulary existed to describe it.

Also at that 1993 Toronto conference, Jim Sinclair delivered what would become one of the most important documents in autistic self-advocacy history: "Don't Mourn for Us."⁹⁵The essay addressed parents who grieved their child's autism diagnosis as the loss of the child they had expected.⁹⁵ Sinclair asked them to consider a different possibility:

"This is what we hear when you mourn over our existence…that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces... You didn't lose a child to autism. You lost a child because the child you waited for never came into existence…. We need and deserve families who can see us and value us for ourselves, not families whose vision of us is obscured by the ghosts of children who never lived."

— Jim Sinclair, Don't Mourn for Us, 1993

The essay was not an argument that autism creates no difficulties or that autistic people require no support. It challenged a more specific assumption: that an autistic life is inherently less valuable because it differs from the life that was expected. That reframe — from deficit to personhood, from loss to recognition — shifted the terms of how autism was understood in the communities where the neurodiversity movement was forming.

ANI then built the infrastructure that allowed those ideas to circulate. In 1994, it launched ANI-L, an email mailing list hosted by Syracuse University and one of the earliest digital spaces where autistic adults and cousins around the world could connect.^39,93 The list gave isolated individuals access to a community that could reflect their own experiences, and it provided the conditions for the kind of sustained peer exchange that would eventually generate the language the movement needed.⁹³

In 1996, ANI held the first Autreat, an annual conference designed entirely by autistic people, for autistic people, structured around the actual sensory and social needs of its attendees: quieter spaces, color-coded badges indicating whether someone welcomed interaction, and "flapplause" — waving or flapping hands in place of clapping, borrowed from Deaf culture — as a less overwhelming way to express enthusiasm.⁹⁶ Autreat was itself an application of the principle that environments should be designed to fit the people in them.

Around the same time, autistic advocate Laura Tisoncik created the satirical Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, which turned the clinical lens around: instead of examining autistic behavior as deviation requiring explanation, it examined neurotypical behavior through the same deficit-focused analytical frame.^97,98 The joke had serious intent.

• If neurotypical behavior were catalogued and pathologized the way autistic behavior routinely was, what would it look like?

• Who decides what counts as normal?

The Making of ADHD

While these frameworks for self-determination were being built, a separate history was unfolding around the medical, cultural, and social understanding of attention, activity, and executive functioning.⁹⁹ It reached the same conclusion by an entirely different route.

For much of the twentieth century, credit for the first clinical description went to the British pediatrician Sir George Frederic Still, whose 1902 Goulstonian lectures to the Royal College of Physicians described children with what he called an abnormal defect of moral control in the absence of intellectual impairment — a biological argument delivered in moral vocabulary.^99,100 That attribution was later revised backward to the Scottish physician Alexander Crichton, who in 1798 published an account of an unnatural or morbid alteration in the faculty of attention, describing people easily drawn off by minor external stimuli and unable to sustain mental focus.^101,102 In 2012, Russell Barkley and Helmut Peters revised it further, translating a chapter on Mangel der Aufmerksamkeit — lack of attention — from the German physician Melchior Adam Weikard's 1775 textbook Der philosophische Arzt.¹⁰⁴ In 2024, researchers pushed the date back again, to a 1753 Latin treatise by the Dutch physician Cornelius Kloekhof, whose work Weikard had cited.¹⁰⁴ Descriptions of difficulty sustaining attention have been present in European medical writing for at least two and a half centuries.⁹⁹ What has changed, continuously, is the interpretation placed on them.

Those interpretations moved through several distinct phases. In 1844, the German physician Heinrich Hoffmann — who later ran a Frankfurt psychiatric hospital and argued that psychiatric patients were ill rather than possessed or criminal — wrote a set of illustrated children's stories that included "Fidgety Phil," a boy who could not sit still at the dinner table.^105,106 The story became a durable popular allegory for hyperactive childhood in German-speaking Europe long before any clinical category existed. In the aftermath of the encephalitis lethargica epidemic that followed the First World War, children who survived the infection and afterward showed marked hyperactivity, impulsivity, and emotional volatility were described as having post-encephalitic behavior disorder.⁹⁹ In 1932, the Berlin physicians Franz Kramer and Hans Pollnow described a hyperkinetic disease of childhood.¹⁰⁷ When the same profile appeared in children with no history of infection or head injury, the terminology shifted to minimal brain damage, and then, when no damage could be located, to minimal brain dysfunction — a framework that assumed an invisible and unmeasurable neurological lesion was responsible for a child's deviation from behavioral norms.^99,108 In 1937, the American physician Charles Bradley found that Benzedrine improved the behavior and school performance of children in his care, establishing the foundations of stimulant treatment.¹⁰⁹

Running underneath this sequence was a slower and more consequential shift. For much of the twentieth century, a child who was restless, impulsive, distractible, or disorganized could be explained through poor discipline, moral failing, behavioral disturbance, family dysfunction, or inadequate parenting.⁹⁹ The gradual move toward neurological and developmental explanation was a genuine improvement, because it removed these children from the category of bad. But it carried a cost that shaped everything afterward: it located the entire problem inside the child's brain and made the medical model the only available frame. That tension — between an explanation that relieved blame and an explanation that pathologized the person — is precisely what would later make ADHD central to the neurodiversity argument.

The diagnostic manuals tracked the shift. In the DSM-II in 1968, the condition appeared through a behavioral lens as hyperkinetic reaction of childhood, focused almost entirely on visible physical restlessness in school settings.¹¹⁰ Through the influential cognitive research of Virginia Douglas in the early 1970s, the frame moved from physical movement to cognitive processing. Douglas argued that the core difference was not simply excess energy but sustained attention, impulse control, and organizational regulation.¹¹¹ That shift was formalized in the DSM-III in 1980, which renamed the condition attention deficit disorder and recognized presentations both with and without hyperactivity, putting attention rather than motor activity at the center for the first time.⁸¹ In 1987, the DSM-III-R unified the presentations under the modern name attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and the DSM-IV again distinguished predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive, and combined presentations.^82,83

Researchers and clinicians believed ADHD was a condition of childhood that individuals would outgrow as their nervous systems matured.⁹⁹ That assumption created a structural vacuum for adults who continued to experience significant differences in attention, motivation, and executive functioning. It was adults who eventually closed it. CHADD, Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, was founded in 1987 and initially focused on parents, children, and school accommodation.¹¹² In 1989, the Attention Deficit Disorder Association was incorporated, uniting fragmented independent support groups into a national collective at a time when ADHD information was difficult to find and adult ADHD was barely recognized clinically. In 1994, ADDA pivoted decisively toward adults, accepting individual adult memberships and directly challenging the belief that children grew out of the condition at puberty.¹¹³ That same year, clinicians Edward Hallowell and John Ratey published Driven to Distraction, the first widely accessible and humanizing account of adult ADHD, which reached a general readership that clinical literature never had.¹¹⁴

ADDA's early leadership shaped how the adult framework was built. Mary Jane Johnson, the organization's first president and a pioneering ADHD coach, argued that adults needed practical, structured executive-function strategies far more than they needed clinical correction.^113,115 Alongside Nancy Ratey, David Giwerc, and Linda Anderson, she helped formalize and scale that work, and in 2002 an ADDA task force chaired by Ratey authored the ADDA Guiding Principles for Coaching Individuals with Attention Deficit Disorder — the field's first sustained attempt to codify the practice for the public.^115,116 What they did not do was invent ADHD coaching in isolation. They built on a decentralized wave of 1990s innovation that included parallel pioneers such as Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, who founded the Optimal Functioning Institute in 1994 and delivered the first specialized curriculum for training ADHD coaches, alongside the early clinical frameworks Hallowell and Ratey set out the same year.^114,117

Sociological research on the field describes exactly that shape: a grassroots trajectory built largely by people personally affected by ADHD, working adjacent to clinical oversight rather than under it.¹¹⁸ The manuals eventually followed the community. The DSM-III-R acknowledged the possibility of persistence into adulthood, the DSM-IV began incorporating examples of how ADHD appears in adult contexts, and the DSM-5 in 2013 moved the age-of-onset criterion from seven to twelve and lowered the symptom threshold for people aged seventeen and older, reflecting research showing that childhood thresholds excluded large numbers of adults who met every other criterion.^82-84

What adults with ADHD were describing was that the condition had not disappeared. They had built systems and strategies around it, often at considerable cost, and often without recognizing what they were compensating for. That recognition is the direct ancestor of contemporary work on masking and compensation, late diagnosis, gendered diagnostic bias, internalized stigma, burnout, and the mismatch between ADHD traits and institutional expectations. It is also, structurally, the same claim autistic adults were making in the same years, arrived at independently and through an entirely different history.

Securing legal recognition for a difference nobody could see required a decade of argument against schools, employers, and lawmakers who treated ADHD as an excuse for laziness or poor discipline. When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was overhauled in 1990, it explicitly listed categories including autism but omitted ADHD entirely, and school districts routinely refused special education services on that basis.⁵³ Grassroots advocacy groups flooded the Department of Education with demands for clarification, and in 1991 the Department issued a joint memorandum ruling that even though ADHD was not an independent category under IDEA, students remained eligible for services under the other health impaired category or through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.¹¹⁹ The 504 plan became the standard mechanism for ADHD accommodations, including extended testing time.

The workplace fight was longer. The Americans with Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, does not list protected conditions; it protects people whose impairment substantially limits a major life activity, which brought ADHD within its scope.⁹ But a series of Supreme Court rulings in the late 1990s, most notably Sutton v. United Air Lines in 1999, held that if an impairment could be mitigated by medication or coping mechanisms, the person no longer qualified as disabled under the law.¹²⁰ This produced a genuine paradox for adults with ADHD: an employee whose medication worked could be dismissed for having ADHD and then be told they were too functional to bring a discrimination claim. ADDA and allied disability rights organizations fought the loophole for nearly a decade, culminating in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which stated explicitly that the mitigating effects of medication or accommodation cannot be considered when determining whether a condition limits a major life activity, and which named concentrating, thinking, reading, and executive function among major life activities.^113,121 That last provision extended protection across the entire emerging neurodivergent umbrella rather than to ADHD alone.

Public recognition followed the legal work. In 1998, the National Institutes of Health convened a Consensus Development Conference that affirmed ADHD as a legitimate condition, responding directly to a public narrative that it was invented or a euphemism for bad parenting.¹²² The treatment landscape broadened when the FDA approved atomoxetine in 2002 as the first non-stimulant medication for ADHD, expanding options for people who could not tolerate stimulants.¹²³ In 2004, the U.S. Senate established National ADHD Awareness Day, later expanded into ADHD Awareness Month each October, through the joint advocacy of CHADD, ADDA, and the ADHD Coaches Organization.^124,125

Parallel to the emergence of the autistic self-advocacy movement, and largely without contact with it, ADHD communities and researchers were reframing executive functioning difficulty not as a moral or behavioral failure but as a difference in how the nervous system regulates attention, motivation, and interest — and as a difference that responds to structural accommodation rather than simply to behavioral correction.^46,118 That framework challenged the assumption that attention had to conform to a single standardized baseline, and it laid the groundwork for ADHD to converge with the emerging neurodiversity movement rather than to be absorbed into it.

Where the Histories Met

The concept of neurodiversity grew out of conversations within autistic and neurodivergent communities during the 1980s and 1990s, including Autism Network International (ANI) and the Independent Living email community.^39,93 Simultaneously, adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) were organizing, working from their own two-century history of shifting medical definitions and their own frustration with a clinical system that had assumed they would grow out of ADHD.¹¹³ Psychiatric survivors, voice-hearers, dyslexic and dyspraxic adults, and people with Tourette syndrome were making similar arguments through their own communities and on their own timelines.¹²⁶ These histories developed separately, for different reasons, using different vocabularies. Before any unified movement existed, each was identified and researched in a separate silo, often in a different country and a different decade.

In 1881, the German physician Oswald Berkhan described reading difficulty in otherwise capable children.¹²⁷ In 1887 the ophthalmologist Rudolf Berlin coined the term "dyslexia."^128,129 In 1885, the French neurologist Georges Gilles de la Tourette published his account of nine patients with a convulsive tic disorder.¹³⁰ What is now Developmental Coordination Disorder spent much of the twentieth century under the informal label "clumsy child syndrome" before being formalized.^131,132 Each of these histories produced its own clinical vocabulary, its own research tradition, and eventually its own community of adults who found that vocabulary insufficient to describe their lives.

It was in 1996 that these histories began converging into a shared linguistic and political framework.⁹³ Martijn Dekker, an autistic programmer in the Netherlands, launched Independent Living on the Autistic Spectrum (InLv), the first independently run web forum for autistic people.⁹³ Dekker deliberately opened it to cousins: people with ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, and other neurological differences. InLv became the space where separate diagnostic histories organized around a shared structural problem, and the language of the movement began to build there. In a 1996 discussion documented by Dekker, participant Tony Langdon used the phrase "neurological diversity of people" — one of the earliest recorded uses of the underlying idea — and framed it not merely as an argument about autistic people but as a claim about what society owed anyone whose neurological characteristics, attention, or executive functioning differed from the majority.⁹³

Naming Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity as a concept was developed collectively, within the InLv and ANI communities, before being named and theorized in overlapping ways by multiple people between 1996 and 1999.⁹³ Harvey Blume, a journalist and InLv participant, brought these developing ideas to a mainstream audience in a 1997 New York Times article, where he described the neurological pluralism InLv and neurodivergent online communities were building — a framework that treated neurological difference as variation rather than deficit and did not assume assimilation into neurotypical norms as the goal.¹³³ The following year, in The Atlantic, Blume argued that neurological diversity may be as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general, and credited the developing concept to the communities in forums like InLv rather than to any individual.¹³⁴

Judy Singer, an Australian sociology student and InLv participant, was developing an academic account at the same time.¹³⁵ Her 1998 honors thesis, "Odd People In: The Birth of Community Amongst People on the Autism Spectrum," and the 1999 book chapter it became, examined these online communities through the lenses of sociology, disability studies, and feminist theory.^135,136 Singer was the first to systematically connect this community-building to the Social Model of Disability, to feminist questions about who holds the authority to describe whose experience, and to the broader history of civil rights movements organized around identity and recognition.^136,137 She proposed that neurologically different people could constitute a new social and political category — not identical to race or gender, but structurally parallel in that people who had historically been described by others were beginning to describe themselves. She named this a politics of neurological diversity.

What Singer's framework established, and what remains central to neurodiversity, is that neurological difference and environmental mismatch are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.¹³⁶ A person may have a genuine neurological difference — a brain that processes sensory input, attention, motivation, language, or social information in ways that diverge from dominant norms — and that difference can produce real challenges. The environment around that person can either reduce those challenges or compound them substantially. An environment that offers flexibility, multiple modes of communication, sensory accommodation, and structural understanding of cognitive difference functions differently than one that demands conformity, penalizes natural regulatory behaviors, and measures capability only against neurotypical standards.⁴⁶

A Broader Movement Finds Its Language

As these ideas moved beyond their early foundations, the language the movement was developing kept expanding to accommodate the reality it was describing. Around 1999 and 2000, activist Kassiane Asasumasu formalized the terms "neurodivergent" and "neurodivergence," defining them to mean anyone whose neurocognitive functioning diverges from dominant societal norms — explicitly inclusive of acquired neurological variations, psychiatric disability and mental illness, epilepsy, Tourette syndrome, and neurodevelopmental conditions including ADHD. Asasumasu was direct about the purpose: the terms were built so that non-autistic people had full ownership of the movement rather than adjacency to it.¹³⁸ The distinction between the two words matters.

Neurodiversity describes a property of a population — the fact that human neurological variation exists at all.

Neurodivergence describes an individual person's relationship to a dominant norm.^55,94

The second term was necessary because the first, used loosely, allows the argument to dissolve into the observation that everyone is a little different. The terms together gave communities a way to recognize shared ground without flattening the real differences between their experiences.

Several communities had been arriving at parallel conclusions through their own histories, in their own countries, without reference to the autistic or ADHD movements.¹²⁶ The Hearing Voices Network, founded in the Netherlands in 1987 by psychiatrist Marius Romme and voice-hearer Patsy Hage, built peer-led support spaces on the premise that hearing voices is a real and potentially manageable aspect of human experience, one that benefits from peer understanding and context rather than only symptom suppression.¹³⁹ The network has since spread to dozens of countries and remains led substantially by people who hear voices themselves.¹⁴⁰ The global Mad Pride movement formed in 1993, beginning as Psychiatric Survivor Pride Day in Toronto, organizing against forced institutionalization, chemical restraint, and medical paternalism along lines structurally parallel to autistic self-advocacy.¹⁴¹ Dyspraxic and dyscalculic adults, working through smaller networks and often through education and employment channels rather than through clinical ones, made the same case about environments that assumed a single processing style.^46,126 Made By Dyslexia, founded in 2017 by Kate Griggs and led by dyslexic adults, campaigned to reframe dyslexia as a cognitive difference with distinctive strengths.¹⁴² That campaign led LinkedIn to add "Dyslexic Thinking" as an official workplace skill in April 2022, marking a shift in how difference is framed within professional environments.^143,144

These communities were not using the word neurodiversity when they began. They arrived at the same underlying claim anyway: a world built around a single neurological standard will produce difficulty for anyone whose brain works differently, and changing that world requires both altering environments and reframing how difference itself is understood.

From Community to Policy

The community infrastructure built by ANI, InLv, ADDA, and the psychiatric survivor networks in the 1980s and 1990s created the conditions for the next generation of organizing, aimed at translating cultural and conceptual change into legal and institutional change.^39,93,113 In 2004, advocate Kathleen Seidel launched Neurodiversity.com, which tracked legal battles and the commercial medicalization of cognitive difference, and which served as one of the first sustained documentary archives of the movement.¹⁴⁵

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network was co-founded on October 27, 2006, by Ari Ne'eman and Scott Michael Robertson, structured as a nonprofit run entirely by and for autistic adults, drawing directly on the People First model.^40,146 Its first major national campaign came in December 2007, when the NYU Child Study Center launched an advertising campaign called "Ransom Notes," a series of ads depicting autism, ADHD, and other conditions as forces holding children hostage in their own bodies. The response was cross-disability from the outset: ASAN organized joint action with mental health and ADHD advocacy networks, and the coalition forced the campaign's withdrawal within weeks.¹⁴⁷ It was the movement's first major public victory, and it was won by exactly the kind of coalition the convergence of the 1990s had made possible.

The legislative record built since then reflects how far that advocacy reached. In 2011, ASAN and allied organizations began the effort to rebrand April from Autism Awareness Month to Autism Acceptance Month, a reframing with practical implications: awareness campaigns had often centered autism as a problem to be solved, while acceptance framing centers autistic people as members of their communities with rights to participation and support.¹⁴⁸ The Combating Autism Act, originally passed in 2006, was renamed and reauthorized as the Autism CARES Act in 2014, stripping the word "combating" from federal autism policy after years of sustained pressure.^149,150 A 2019 reauthorization expanded federal services and tracking to cover autistic people across the full lifespan rather than treating autism as a condition that existed only in children.¹⁵¹

Other campaigns addressed conditions with more immediate consequences. ASAN worked to phase out sheltered workshops — settings where federal loopholes had long permitted employers to pay disabled workers a fraction of the minimum wage — and pushed the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services Settings Rule toward ensuring that community-based funding actually supported independent living.^152-154 Simultaneously, the organization spent years coordinating with the FDA to restrict and ban the use of electric skin-shock devices on disabled people at institutions like the Judge Rotenberg Center.¹⁵⁵ Although the FDA's initial 2020 ban was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2021, Congress explicitly restored the agency's banning authority in late 2022, a legislative victory that allowed ASAN and federal regulators to renew the push for a permanent ban.^156-160 It continues to advocate for legislation banning dangerous restraint and seclusion practices in public schools.⁴⁰

In September 2016, a steering group of autistic, dyslexic, and ADHD political organizers launched a draft Autism and Neurodiversity Manifesto at a fringe event of the UK Labour Party's annual conference, with support from MP John McDonnell and research input from academics including Damian Milton and Dinah Murray.^161,162 It was the first time a major political party had engaged with a policy platform built specifically around neurodiversity, and the first to consult neurodivergent people directly in setting those policies. The manifesto's stated principles were the Social Model of disability, the neurodiversity approach, opposition to austerity in public services, and nothing about us without us.¹⁶¹ Its drafting group later became Neurodivergent Labour, and elements of the platform reached the party's 2017 general election manifesto, which committed to the social model and to promoting neurodiversity in workplaces.¹⁶³

Other communities pursued the same aims through different channels. Organizations like the International Dyslexia Association, which had historically operated as conventional educational nonprofits, saw adult dyslexic and dyscalculic self-advocates pivot toward social-movement organizing during the 2010s, partnering with corporate neurodiversity groups to formalize the "spiky profile" in hiring and human resources practice.^46,164 That approach replaced the assumption of a flat, general level of ability with the expectation of uneven, specialized cognitive profiles, and it required employers to evaluate candidates on specific strengths rather than on general conformity.⁴⁶ Tourette syndrome advocates joined the movement globally through large viral campaigns between roughly 2018 and 2021, under hashtags including #TicTok and #NormalizeStimming, adopting the movement's vocabulary to argue for accommodating tics rather than suppressing them.^165,166 Across education, the same logic produced Universal Design for Learning, which builds flexibility for sensory sensitivity, non-linear processing, and varied communication styles into the design of instruction rather than adding it afterward for individual students.^167,168

Several organizations now anchor this work internationally. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network remains the leading policy and civil rights organization run by and for autistic adults in the United States.⁴⁰ CHADD, historically clinician- and parent-focused, has developed adult self-advocacy work that increasingly aligns with neurodiversity-affirming frameworks, alongside ADDA's continuing focus on adults.^112,113 The Society for Neurodiversity is a prominent European member-led organization built explicitly to represent people across all neurotypes who encounter systemic inaccessibility.¹⁶⁹ The Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network works at the intersections of gender, race, and neurodivergence, focusing on masking, diagnostic gaps, and safety for people whose marginalization compounds.¹⁷⁰

Where the Research Stands Today

The research community has been shifting as well, though unevenly, and the shift has had less to do with overturning findings than with changing which questions get asked and who is positioned to ask them.

The clearest example came in 2012, when autistic sociologist Damian Milton proposed what he called the double empathy problem, challenging the theory-of-mind account that had organized autism research since 1985.^78,171 Milton argued that communication difficulty between autistic and non-autistic people runs in both directions, because each group is working from different social expectations and communication styles.¹⁷¹ Researchers led by Catherine Crompton later tested that idea using diffusion chains, a method structured like a game of telephone, measuring how accurately information travels through a chain of people.¹⁷² Chains made up entirely of autistic participants passed information with the same accuracy and rapport as chains made up entirely of non-autistic participants.¹⁷² The loss occurred in mixed chains, where information had to cross between neurotypes.¹⁷² That result moved the source of the difficulty out of any individual and into the space between two different communication styles, which is precisely what the Social Model would predict.

Research on masking — the effortful suppression of neurodivergent traits in order to appear neurotypical — developed alongside it.¹⁷³ In 2020, a study led by Dora Raymaker and conducted with autistic co-researchers produced the first formal research definition of autistic burnout: chronic exhaustion, loss of previously held skills, and reduced tolerance for sensory and social input, arising from the accumulated cost of masking and chronically unmet support needs.¹⁷⁴ It documented what autistic adults had been describing in community spaces for years, and it demonstrated that environments requiring constant performance of neurotypicality carry a measurable cost.¹⁷⁴ Parallel work on compensation in ADHD, particularly among women and among people whose attention differences are primarily inattentive rather than visibly hyperactive, describes the same pattern, and helps explain why so many adults are identified late or never at all.^175,176 Disability Justice organizers including Lydia X. Z. Brown had already reframed masking as a survival strategy rather than a behavioral quirk, developed in environments where visible difference carried real professional, academic, and social consequences.^177,178

The theoretical foundations were formalized alongside this work. The neurodiversity paradigm, articulated most influentially by scholar Nick Walker, rests on three claims: that human neurological diversity is a natural and valuable form of variation, that there is no single normal type of brain, and that the social challenges neurodivergent people face are political in the same way that the challenges faced by other marginalized groups are political.^55,94 It is not a medical claim. It is a perspective on human variation and on who holds the power to define it, and it holds that neurodivergent people are naturally different rather than inherently disordered while recognizing plainly that environments continue to produce disabling barriers.⁹⁴

Work on cognitive profiles has given that perspective empirical texture. Nancy Doyle has estimated that roughly 15 to 20 percent of the population belong to neurominorities, characterized by a spiky profile in which pronounced cognitive strengths and genuine executive functioning difficulties exist within the same person.⁴⁶ Researchers including Doyle, and later Shaw and colleagues, have argued for evaluating strengths and difficulties together rather than framing neurodivergence either as pure deficit or as a set of superpowers.^46,55

Independent researcher Leif Ekblad reached a related conclusion from a different direction, using large-scale online survey data to argue that neurodivergent and neurotypical traits form overlapping normal distributions rather than two separate populations — a finding consistent with the view that these traits represent ordinary human variation, though drawn from self-selected online samples rather than clinical ones.¹⁷⁹

Research has also complicated any simple picture of a single ADHD brain or a single autistic brain. Population-modelling work drawing on more than four thousand brain scans has mapped how widely individual neuroanatomical trajectories vary within both diagnoses, and how much of that variation tracks age, sex, and co-occurring conditions rather than the diagnostic label itself.¹⁸⁰ A meta-analysis of 243 task-based functional MRI studies found the same problem from another direction, cautioning that rigid experimental tasks map poorly onto underlying neurobiology and should not be read as a clean representation of either condition.¹⁸¹ Later work identifying distinct ADHD biotypes with separate neurochemical and cognitive profiles has reinforced the point that standard aggregate measures obscure substantial individual variation.¹⁸² This matters, because neurodiversity is often misread as a claim that everyone with a given label is alike. It is also part of why environment does so much of the work: the same accommodation will not serve everyone carrying the same label.

The boundaries between conditions have proven equally difficult to draw cleanly. Until 2013, the DSM-IV prohibited clinicians from diagnosing autism and ADHD in the same person — an administrative rule rather than an empirical finding, and one that shaped a generation of practice and research.⁸³ The DSM-5 removed it, co-occurrence is now understood to affect a substantial share of autistic people, and the term "AuDHD" evolved in community spaces to describe the combination.^84,183,184 The autistic and ADHD communities had stopped observing that boundary in the InLv forums in 1996.⁹³ The diagnostic manual caught up seventeen years later.

Researchers continue to debate which conditions the framework encompasses, and there are genuine tensions within it.¹⁸⁵ Many people find neurodiversity affirming and practically useful.¹⁸⁵ Others are concerned that it can underestimate real difficulty and significant support needs — including for people who are non-speaking, people with co-occurring intellectual disability, and people who require substantial daily assistance.^185,186 Those tensions are unresolved, and they reflect real complexity in the lives of real people. Holding that complexity honestly is part of what it means to take this history seriously, and the framework does not require flattening it. The Social Model's original formulation already held both things at once: the difference is real, and the barrier is separately real and modifiable.⁴⁴

Conclusion

That is the thread that runs through the entire history — from veterans demanding accessible transit, to activists occupying a federal building to enforce a law that already existed, to self-advocates in Oregon who insisted on running their own convention, to autistic people in online forums who began calling their own experience neurological diversity before anyone had written a thesis about it. The concept of neurodiversity developed because people kept asking a different question: what changes when we recognize that neurological variation is part of what it means to be human, and what changes when the people living that variation are included in defining what support means? The answer to those questions is still being written — by researchers, by advocates, by communities, and by every neurodivergent person building a life that fits who they are.

References

1. Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. Times Books.

2. Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. In S. Firestone & A. Koedt (Eds.), Notes from the second year: Women's liberation. Radical Feminism.

3. Paralyzed Veterans of America. (n.d.). Our history. https://pva.org

4. American National Standards Institute. (1961). American standard specifications for making buildings and facilities accessible to, and usable by, the physically handicapped (A117.1). ANSI.

5. Barnartt, S., & Scotch, R. (2001). Disability protests: Contentious politics 1970–1999. Gallaudet University Press.

6. Atlantis Community. (n.d.). The Gang of 19. https://www.atlantiscommunity.org

7. Regional Transportation District. (2023, July 6). "We Will Ride": Historic events of 45 years ago recognized. RTD Denver. https://www.rtd-denver.com/community/news/2023/we-will-ride-historic-events-of-45-years-ago-recognized

8. History.com Editors. (2025, May 28). "Gang of 19" activists occupy Denver intersection to protest inaccessibility on the city's bus system. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/july-5/gang-of-19-disability-activists-protest-denver-bus-system

9. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

10. Grob, G. N. (1994). The mad among us: A history of the care of America's mentally ill. Free Press.

11. Community Mental Health Act of 1963, Pub. L. No. 88-164, 77 Stat. 282.

12. Taylor, S. J. (2009). Acts of conscience: World War II, mental institutions, and religious objectors. Syracuse University Press.

13. Maisel, A. Q. (1946, May 6). Bedlam 1946: Most U.S. mental hospitals are a shame and a disgrace. Life, 102–118.

14. Deutsch, A. (1948). The shame of the states. Harcourt, Brace.

15. Rothman, D. J., & Rothman, S. M. (1984). The Willowbrook wars. Harper & Row.

16. Rivera, G. (1972). Willowbrook: The last great disgrace [Television broadcast]. WABC-TV.

17. Krugman, S. (1986). The Willowbrook hepatitis studies revisited: Ethical aspects. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 8(1), 157–162.

18. New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey, 393 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1975).

19. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).

20. Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice: Transforming attitudes to disability. Women's Press.

21. Heumann, J., & Joiner, K. (2020). Being Heumann: An unrepentant memoir of a disability rights activist. Beacon Press.

22. Heumann v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 320 F. Supp. 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

23. Disabled in Action. (n.d.). Our history. https://www.disabledinaction.org

24. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355.

25. Scotch, R. K. (2001). From good will to civil rights: Transforming federal disability policy (2nd ed.). Temple University Press.

26. Cone, K. (1996). Short history of the 504 sit-in. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. https://dredf.org

27. Schweik, S. M. (2011). Lomax's matrix: Disability, solidarity, and the Black Power of 504. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v31i1.1371

28. Brown, E. (1992). A taste of power: A Black woman's story. Pantheon.

29. Sins Invalid. (2019). Skin, tooth, and bone: The basis of movement is our people (2nd ed.). Sins Invalid.

30. Berne, P., Morales, A. L., Langstaff, D., & Sins Invalid. (2018). Ten principles of disability justice. WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly, 46(1), 227–230. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2018.0003

31. Mingus, M. (n.d.). Leaving evidence [Blog]. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com

32. Roberts, E. (1989). Interview with Ed Roberts. Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

33. Zukas, H. (1975). CIL history: Report of the state of the art task force. Center for Independent Living.

34. DeJong, G. (1979). Independent living: From social movement to analytic paradigm. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 60(10), 435–446.

35. Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179–195). President's Committee on Mental Retardation.

36. Williams, P., & Shoultz, B. (1982). We can speak for ourselves: Self-advocacy by mentally handicapped people. Souvenir Press.

37. People First of Canada. (n.d.). History of People First. https://peoplefirstofcanada.ca

38. Self Advocates Becoming Empowered. (n.d.). History of self-advocacy. https://www.sabeusa.org

39. Sinclair, J. (2005). Autism Network International: The development of a community and its culture. https://www.autreat.com/History_of_ANI.html

40. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (n.d.). About ASAN. https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/

41. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.

42. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan.

43. Hunt, P. (Ed.). (1966). Stigma: The experience of disability. Geoffrey Chapman.

44. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. UPIAS.

45. Oliver, M. (1983). Social work with disabled people. Macmillan.

46. Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021

47. Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959833

48. Campbell, J., & Oliver, M. (1996). Disability politics: Understanding our past, changing our future. Routledge.

49. Disability Discrimination Act 1995, c. 50 (UK).

50. Equality Act 2010, c. 15 (UK).

51. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

52. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773.

53. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142.

54. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647.

55. Shaw, S. C. K., Brown, M. E. L., Jain, N. R., George, R. E., Bernard, S., Godfrey-Harris, M., & Doherty, M. (2024). When I say … neurodiversity paradigm. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15565

56. Evans, B. (2013). How autism became autism: The radical transformation of a central concept of child development in Britain. History of the Human Sciences, 26(3), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695113484320

57. Golt, J., & Kana, R. K. (2022). History of autism. In R. K. Kana (Ed.), The neuroscience of autism (pp. 1–18). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816393-1.00002-6

58. Bleuler, E. (1911). Dementia praecox oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien. Deuticke.

59. Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. The Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.

60. Donvan, J., & Zucker, C. (2016). In a different key: The story of autism. Crown.

61. Asperger, H. (1991). "Autistic psychopathy" in childhood (U. Frith, Trans.). In U. Frith (Ed.), Autism and Asperger syndrome (pp. 37–92). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1944)

62. Sheffer, E. (2018). Asperger's children: The origins of autism in Nazi Vienna. W. W. Norton.

63. Czech, H. (2018). Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and "race hygiene" in Nazi-era Vienna. Molecular Autism, 9, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6

64. Silberman, S. (2015). NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Avery.

65. Bettelheim, B. (1967). The empty fortress: Infantile autism and the birth of the self. Free Press.

66. Rimland, B. (1964). Infantile autism: The syndrome and its implications for a neural theory of behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

67. Hviid, A., Hansen, J. V., Frisch, M., & Melbye, M. (2019). Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination and autism: A nationwide cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 170(8), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2101

68. Mental Health Act 1959, c. 72 (UK).

69. Lotter, V. (1966). Epidemiology of autistic conditions in young children: I. Prevalence. Social Psychiatry, 1(3), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00584048

70. Folstein, S., & Rutter, M. (1977). Infantile autism: A genetic study of 21 twin pairs. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 18(4), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1977.tb00443.x

71. Lord, C., Rutter, M., Goode, S., Heemsbergen, J., Jordan, H., Mawhood, L., & Schopler, E. (1989). Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule: A standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19(2), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211841

72. Department of Education and Science. (1972). Speech therapy services [Quirk Report]. HMSO.

73. National Autistic Society. (n.d.). Our history. https://www.autism.org.uk

74. Eyal, G., Hart, B., Onculer, E., Oren, N., & Rossi, N. (2010). The autism matrix: The social origins of the autism epidemic. Polity Press.

75. Eyal, G. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863–907. https://doi.org/10.1086/668448

76. Wing, L., & Gould, J. (1979). Severe impairments of social interaction and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology and classification. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531288

77. Wing, L. (1981). Asperger's syndrome: A clinical account. Psychological Medicine, 11(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700053332

78. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8

79. Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma. Blackwell.

80. American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. APA.

81. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). APA.

82. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). APA.

83. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). APA.

84. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). APA. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

85. McPartland, J. C., Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2012). Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(4), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.007

86. Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., Meldrum, D., & Charman, T. (2006). Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: The Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP). The Lancet, 368(9531), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69041-7

87. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 sites, United States, 2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 56(SS-1), 12–28.

88. Maenner, M. J., Shaw, K. A., Baio, J., Washington, A., Patrick, M., DiRienzo, M., … Dietz, P. M. (2020). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2016. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 69(SS-4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1

89. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., … Walker-Smith, J. A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641. (Retracted 2010)

90. Deer, B. (2011). How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ, 342, c5347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5347

91. Editors of The Lancet. (2010). Retraction — Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 375(9713), 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4

92. Grandin, T., & Scariano, M. M. (1986). Emergence: Labeled autistic. Arena Press.

93. Dekker, M. (2020). From exclusion to acceptance: Independent living on the autistic spectrum. In S. K. Kapp (Ed.), Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline (pp. 41–49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_3

94. Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.

95. Sinclair, J. (1993). Don't mourn for us. Our Voice, 1(3). Autism Network International.

96. Sinclair, J. (2010). Being autistic together. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i1.1075

97. Tisoncik, L. A. (n.d.). Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical. http://isnt.autistics.org

98. Tisoncik, L. A. (2020). Autistics.org and finding our voices as an activist movement. In S. K. Kapp (Ed.), Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline (pp. 65–76). Palgrave Macmillan.

99. Lange, K. W., Reichl, S., Lange, K. M., Tucha, L., & Tucha, O. (2010). The history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 2(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-010-0045-8

100. Still, G. F. (1902). Some abnormal psychical conditions in children: The Goulstonian lectures. The Lancet, 159(4102), 1008–1012.

101. Crichton, A. (1798). An inquiry into the nature and origin of mental derangement (Vol. 1). T. Cadell & W. Davies.

102. Palmer, E. D., & Finger, S. (2001). An early description of ADHD (inattentive subtype): Dr Alexander Crichton and "mental restlessness" (1798). Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6(2), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360641701002507

103. Barkley, R. A., & Peters, H. (2012). The earliest reference to ADHD in the medical literature? Melchior Adam Weikard's description in 1775 of "attention deficit" (Mangel der Aufmerksamkeit, Attentio Volubilis). Journal of Attention Disorders, 16(8), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054711432309

104. van Kernebeek, M. W., & Crunelle, C. L. (2024). The beginnings of attention deficit in a Dutch 18th century medical treatise. Journal of Attention Disorders, 28(8), 1236–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547241238926

105. Hoffmann, H. (1845). Lustige Geschichten und drollige Bilder [later Der Struwwelpeter]. Literarische Anstalt.

106. Thome, J., & Jacobs, K. A. (2004). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a 19th century children's book. European Psychiatry, 19(5), 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2004.05.004

107. Kramer, F., & Pollnow, H. (1932). Über eine hyperkinetische Erkrankung im Kindesalter. Monatsschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, 82, 21–40.

108. Clements, S. D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children: Terminology and identification (NINDB Monograph No. 3). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

109. Bradley, C. (1937). The behavior of children receiving Benzedrine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 94(3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.94.3.577

110. American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (2nd ed.). APA.

111. Douglas, V. I. (1972). Stop, look and listen: The problem of sustained attention and impulse control in hyperactive and normal children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 4(4), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082313

112. CHADD. (n.d.). About CHADD. https://chadd.org

113. Attention Deficit Disorder Association. (n.d.). ADDA history. https://add.org

114. Hallowell, E. M., & Ratey, J. J. (1994). Driven to distraction: Recognizing and coping with attention deficit disorder from childhood through adulthood. Pantheon.

115. Attention Deficit Disorder Association. (n.d.). ADHD coaching and ADDA: History in the making. https://add.org/adhd-coaching-and-adda-history-in-the-making/

116. Ratey, N. A. (n.d.). The ADDA guiding principles for coaching individuals with attention deficit disorder. https://nancyratey.com/the-adda-guiding-principles-for-coaching-individuals-with-attention-deficit-disorder/

117. ADHD Coaches Organization. (n.d.). History of ADHD coaching. https://www.adhdcoaches.org/history

118. Bergey, M. R. (2024). "Pills don't teach skills": ADHD coaching, identity work, and the push toward the liminal medicalization of ADHD. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 65(2), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465231220385

119. U.S. Department of Education. (1991). Joint policy memorandum on children with attention deficit disorder. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

120. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).

121. ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553.

122. National Institutes of Health. (1998). Diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (NIH Consensus Statement No. 110). NIH.

123. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2002). Approval letter: Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochloride). FDA.

124. U.S. Senate. (2004). S. Res. 370: Designating September 7, 2004, as National Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Awareness Day. 108th Congress.

125. ADHD Awareness Month Coalition. (n.d.). About ADHD Awareness Month. https://www.adhdawarenessmonth.org

126. Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). "Us" and "them": The limits and possibilities of a "politics of neurodiversity" in neoliberal times. Disability & Society, 29(7), 1117–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.910107

127. Berkhan, O. (1885). Über die Störung der Schriftsprache bei Halbidioten und ihre Ähnlichkeit mit dem Stammeln. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 15, 78–86.

128. Berlin, R. (1887). Eine besondere Art der Wortblindheit (Dyslexie). J. F. Bergmann.

129. Wagner, R. (1973). Rudolf Berlin: Originator of the term dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 23, 57–63.

130. Gilles de la Tourette, G. (1885). Étude sur une affection nerveuse caractérisée par de l'incoordination motrice accompagnée d'écholalie et de coprolalie. Archives de Neurologie, 9, 19–42, 158–200.

131. Gubbay, S. S. (1975). The clumsy child: A study of developmental apraxic and agnosic ataxia. W. B. Saunders.

132. Polatajko, H. J., & Cantin, N. (2005). Developmental coordination disorder (dyspraxia): An overview of the state of the art. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 12(4), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen.2005.12.007

133. Blume, H. (1997, June 30). Autistics, freed from face-to-face encounters, are communicating in cyberspace. The New York Times.

134. Blume, H. (1998, September 30). Neurodiversity: On the neurological underpinnings of geekdom. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/09/neurodiversity/305909/

135. Singer, J. (1998). Odd people in: The birth of community amongst people on the autism spectrum [Honours thesis]. University of Technology Sydney.

136. Singer, J. (1999). "Why can't you be normal for once in your life?" From a "problem with no name" to the emergence of a new category of difference. In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability discourse (pp. 59–67). Open University Press.

137. Singer, J. (2017). NeuroDiversity: The birth of an idea (2nd ed.). Judy Singer.

138. Asasumasu, K. (2015, October). PSA from the actual coiner of "neurodivergent." Sherlocksflataffect [Tumblr]. Archived at https://web.archive.org/

139. Romme, M., & Escher, S. (1993). Accepting voices. MIND Publications.

140. Corstens, D., Longden, E., McCarthy-Jones, S., Waddingham, R., & Thomas, N. (2014). Emerging perspectives from the Hearing Voices Movement: Implications for research and practice. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 40(Suppl. 4), S285–S294. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbu007

141. Costa, L., Voronka, J., Landry, D., Reid, J., McFarlane, B., Reville, D., & Church, K. (2012). "Recovering our stories": A small act of resistance. Studies in Social Justice, 6(1), 85–101.

142. International Dyslexia Association. (2017, September 1). Press release: "Made By Dyslexia" founder Kate Griggs to speak at reading conference. https://dyslexiaida.org/press-release-made-by-dyslexia-founder-kate-griggs-to-speak-at-reading-conference/

143. Griggs, K. (2022, March 31). Dyslexic Thinking is now officially recognised as a valuable skill! LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dyslexic-thinking-now-officially-recognised-valuable-skill-griggs

144. Lepitak, S. (2022, April 1). "Dyslexic Thinking" becomes a LinkedIn skill. Adweek. https://www.adweek.com/creativity/virgin-backed-campaign-sees-dyslexic-thinking-become-a-linkedin-skill/

145. Seidel, K. (2004). Neurodiversity.com [Website]. https://neurodiversity.com

146. Ne'eman, A. (2010). The future (and the past) of autism advocacy, or why the ASA's magazine, The Advocate, wouldn't publish this piece. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i1.1059

147. Kras, J. F. (2010). The "Ransom Notes" affair: When the neurodiversity movement came of age. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i1.1065

148. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2011). Autism Acceptance Month. https://autismacceptance.com

149. Combating Autism Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-416, 120 Stat. 2821.

150. Autism CARES Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-157, 128 Stat. 1831.

151. Autism CARES Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-60, 133 Stat. 1108.

152. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 214(c).

153. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2015). Subminimum wage and sheltered workshops [Policy brief]. https://autisticadvocacy.org

154. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2014). Medicaid home and community-based services settings rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 2948.

155. Banned Devices; Electrical Stimulation Devices for Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior, 85 Fed. Reg. 13312 (March 6, 2020) (codified at 21 C.F.R. pt. 895).

156. Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 3 F.4th 390 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

157. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2021, July 6). ASAN denounces court ruling on electric skin shock. https://autisticadvocacy.org/2021/07/asan-denounces-court-ruling-on-electric-skin-shock/

158. Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-328, § 3306, 136 Stat. 4459, 5834.

159. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2022, December 23). Congress has supported the FDA's right to #StopTheShock. https://autisticadvocacy.org/2022/12/congress-has-supported-the-fdas-right-to-stoptheshock/

160. Banned Devices; Proposal to Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices for Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior, 89 Fed. Reg. 20882 (proposed March 26, 2024) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. pt. 895).

161. Neurodivergent Labour. (2016). Autism and neurodiversity manifesto [Draft]. https://neurodivergentlabour.org

162. Milton, D. E. M. (2017). A mismatch of salience: Explorations of the nature of autism from theory to practice. Pavilion.

163. Labour Party. (2017). For the many, not the few: The Labour Party manifesto 2017.

164. Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96–103.

165. Tic-talk: Voices on Tourette's labelling. (2025). Movement Disorders Clinical Practice, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.70110

166. Can the neurodiversity movement make space for Tourette's? Dialoguing lived experiences and theory. (2025). Journal of Neurodiversity Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251378383

167. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. ASCD.

168. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines (Version 2.2). https://udlguidelines.cast.org

169. Society for Neurodiversity. (n.d.). About S3ND. https://s3nd.org

170. Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network. (n.d.). About AWN. https://awnnetwork.org

171. Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The "double empathy problem." Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

172. Crompton, C. J., Ropar, D., Evans-Williams, C. V. M., Flynn, E. G., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism, 24(7), 1704–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919286

173. Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). "Putting on my best normal": Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5

174. Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., … Nicolaidis, C. (2020). "Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and going to get very little back": Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079

175. Young, S., Adamo, N., Ásgeirsdóttir, B. B., Branney, P., Beckett, M., Colley, W., … Woodhouse, E. (2020). Females with ADHD: An expert consensus statement taking a lifespan approach providing guidance for the identification and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in girls and women. BMC Psychiatry, 20, 404. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02707-9

176. Quinn, P. O., & Madhoo, M. (2014). A review of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in women and girls: Uncovering this hidden diagnosis. The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.13r01596

177. Brown, L. X. Z., Ashkenazy, E., & Giwa Onaiwu, M. (Eds.). (2017). All the weight of our dreams: On living racialized autism. DragonBee Press / Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network.

178. Pearson, A., & Rose, K. (2021). A conceptual analysis of autistic masking: Understanding the narrative of stigma and the illusion of choice. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0043

179. Ekblad, L. (2013). Autism, personality, and human diversity: Defining neurodiversity in an iterative process using Aspie Quiz. SAGE Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013497722

180. Bedford, S. A., Lai, M.-C., Lombardo, M. V., Chakrabarti, B., Ruigrok, A., Suckling, J., … Bethlehem, R. A. I. (2025). Brain-charting autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder reveals distinct and overlapping neurobiology. Biological Psychiatry, 97(5), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.07.024

181. Tamon, H., Fujino, J., Itahashi, T., Frahm, L., Parlatini, V., Aoki, Y. Y., Castellanos, F. X., Eickhoff, S. B., & Cortese, S. (2024). Shared and specific neural correlates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of 243 task-based functional MRI studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 181(6), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230270

182. Pan, N., Long, Y., Qin, K., Pope, I., Chen, Q., Zhu, Z., … Gong, Q. (2026). Mapping ADHD heterogeneity and biotypes by topological deviations in morphometric similarity networks. JAMA Psychiatry, 83(5), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2026.0001

183. Rong, Y., Yang, C.-J., Jin, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 83, 101759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101759

184. Hours, C., Recasens, C., & Baleyte, J.-M. (2022). ASD and ADHD comorbidity: What are we talking about? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 837424. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.837424

185. Kapp, S. K. (Ed.). (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0

186. Nadesan, M. H. (2005). Constructing autism: Unravelling the "truth" and understanding the social. Routledge.