I care deeply about neurodiversity at work.
But I never use the word ‘neurotypical’.
Let me explain:
First, just to be clear, this isn’t intended as a moral lecture or an attempt to police anyone’s language.
I simply want to share the thinking behind the language I use – and why I believe these nuances are worth reflecting on, even if you disagree (which is completely okay).
For me, the essence of neurodiversity is that every person has a uniquely wired brain.
For some – like me, an autistic person – this comes with a diagnosis or label.
For others, it doesn’t.
Labels or not, we all have our strengths, needs, and challenges.
For some, those challenges may be more severe or disabling, in ways that can be invisible to others, or met with bias and stigma.
That’s why raising awareness of neurodiversity in organizations is critical:
To break down barriers for those who struggle in silence.
And to create the right conditions for *every* mind to thrive.
But drawing a binary line between ‘neurodivergent’ and ‘neurotypical’ has never sat comfortably with me.
The word ‘neurotypical’, in particular, has always made me feel uneasy, especially in the context of the educational work I do within my organization and beyond.
There are three reasons for this:
👉 1. No one is just typical – everyone is unique
There’s a saying in the autistic community that when you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person. This is absolutely true. But the reverse is equally true: when you’ve met one non-autistic person, you’ve met one non-autistic person.
I want to help leaders see and support every team member as a unique individual – not group those without a diagnosis into one broad category (‘neurotypical’) that implies they’re all the same. They’re not.
👉 2. Calling others ‘typical’ may hinder mutual understanding
The word ‘typical’ in ‘neurotypical’ can carry unintended connotations. For some, it may imply being average, unremarkable, or even lacking individuality.
Who wants to be seen that way?
If the goal is to foster mutual empathy and understanding, I wonder whether calling others ‘(neuro)typical’ is the best place to start.
👉 3. It encourages ‘us vs. them’ thinking
I’ve experienced firsthand the value of finding belonging in a shared autistic identity – it can bring comfort, self-understanding, and connection.
But when that identity fuels divisive ‘us vs. them’ narratives, I worry it risks doing more harm than good, potentially alienating the very people whose support we need.
In teams and organizations, the goal is to learn how to work together more effectively – and that requires mutual understanding beyond simple dualities.
The key, I think, is to keep seeing each other as unique human beings.
Because every person is different, irrespective of labels.
P.S. There are likely nuances I’ve overlooked, and as always, I welcome constructive debate.
Photo: me at work, where I advocate for neuroinclusion every day.
