Blog

My name's Craig, and I have a confession.

I line my T-shirts up in colour order in my wardrobe.

As the father of a diagnosed autistic son, I've often joked "he got it from somewhere, and I'm a software developer..." and thought little more of it. Jack lives his life like any other teenager, and we manage a meltdown or similar when it occurs, and try to minimise possibilities in the meantime.

But I hear some people tut, saying "everyone's autistic nowadays" and I feel my blood boiling.

The issue in society is the way we've arrived at the branding. You're neuro-typical... or you're not. But what is the measure of a neuro-typical mind? Who is to say that Jack's inability to sleep, lack of sense of danger or hyper-focus on specialist subjects is any more typical (or not) than me making sure that my blue tops are all together in my wardrobe (or that - years ago - my CDs and DVDs were arranged alphabetically)?

Society today is so much more accommodating than it has ever been for those with spectrum conditions.

A friend and colleague at work routinely points out when creating actions that if something is assigned to the group and not an individual, then it's arguably assigned to no-one. I think society is approaching a similar point with spectrum conditions. The reality is that everyone has some foibles that will see them placed on said spectrum (hence it being a spectrum), and once you arrive in a position where most/all people are present on it, what becomes of the "neuro-typical" standard that once was?

We must accommodate people, I think. An understanding teacher that permits a classroom to get out of their chairs and try something different, for example, reinforces to young people that not everyone is the same and that some learn in a different way. An employer that is prepared to work with staff to ensure the working environment is comfortable is going to get significantly more from their staff than one that doesn't.

I've been thinking this over after a discussion with my wife. I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of the issue is with that "neuro-typical" label; where was this ever defined? What was the control group? Where is the line drawn: when two very similar individuals may be identified as typical/non-typical against each other, then what is the measure?

I don't know.

It's worth pointing out that there's no ill-will meant with this branding, either. Jack's certainly not neuro-typical, but that doesn't mean he is slow; indeed, he was walking and talking months ahead of his peers; he was always miles ahead of them - being atypical to those around him doesn't mean he was behind them, just not "typical"!

So if we think of a spectrum existing that accomodates everyone - me and Jack are both on it, but in different places, just like you reading this and every other human on the planet is - then surely "neuro-typical" is entirely redundant, as everyone is on that spectrum?

Maybe it's time we stopped measuring ourselves against an undefined, obsolete standard and focused instead on the simple, clear reality: we must accommodate people. Full stop. Not specifically neuro-divergent types, nor any other grouping of people in particular. So we should stop this ridiculous measurement and definition of "normal", accept that there are differences between all of us, and get along.