Here's a question worth sitting with: if neurodiversity means difference, not deficit… does that mean neurodivergent people aren't disabled?

It's one of the most important tensions in this whole conversation. And the honest answer is: it depends, and it's complicated, and both things can be true at once.

Controversies: neurodiversity or disability?

Critics of the neurodiversity paradigm sometimes argue that framing autism or ADHD as mere "differences" risks minimising the very real difficulties people face. If we just say "it's all just variation," the concern goes, we might stop supporting the people who genuinely need it.

It's a fair concern, and neurodiversity advocates largely agree. The point was never to pretend challenges don't exist. It was to reframe where those challenges come from.

Under the social model of disability, the problem isn't the person. It's the mismatch between the person and the environment they're expected to navigate.

An autistic person might struggle at work not because of autism itself, but because the office has fluorescent lighting, unpredictable social demands, and no quiet space to decompress. Remove those barriers, and some of the "disability" lifts. That's the argument and there's real truth in it.

The limit of social model

Even in a perfectly inclusive environment, one designed from the ground up for neurodivergent people, some individuals would still face significant challenges. Some cognitive and sensory difficulties are biological, not just environmental.

Researchers like Reindal have pointed toward a social-relational model that tries to hold both realities at once: disability arises from the interaction between a person's characteristics and their environment. You can't reduce it to just one or the other.

This feels right to me. It avoids both the trap of "you're broken, let's fix you" and the overreach of "there's nothing actually difficult about your experience, society just needs to change."

The “high-functioning” and “low-functioning” debate

Categorising autistic individuals as “high” or “low functioning” simplifies complex realities. This language obscures individual variation, restricts access to support for some, and limits autonomy for others (Fenton & Krahn, 2007).

Neurodiversity emphasises the spectrum of abilities - acknowledging that capacity fluctuates across contexts and over time. It avoids hierarchies of functioning and instead promotes flexible support aligned with individual needs.

Does neurodiversity deny support needs?

Another common misreading is that embracing neurodiversity means rejecting all medical or therapeutic support. It doesn't.

What it questions is intervention aimed solely at making someone appear neurotypical - at normalising presentation rather than improving quality of life. The goal of support, in a neurodiversity-affirming framework, is always the person's own wellbeing and participation. Not the comfort of people around them.

A balanced perspective

The social model of disability was groundbreaking but incomplete. It rightly shifted attention to societal barriers but overlooked biological realities. As Shakespeare and Watson (2001) and Ballou (2018) highlight, a complete understanding must include both - the individual and their environment.

In practice, it can translate to: what barriers can we remove? And for the challenges that remain, what genuine support does this person need to live and work well?

References

1. Armstrong, T. (2010). Neurodiversity: Discovering the extraordinary gifts of autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other brain differences. Da Capo Press.

2. Armstrong, T. (2015). The myth of the normal brain: Embracing neurodiversity. AMA Journal of Ethics, 17(4), 348–352.

3. Ballou, N. (2018). What the neurodiversity movement does – and doesn’t – offer. Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism. http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2018/02/what-neurodiversity-movement-doesand.html

4. Den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism, 23(2), 271–273.

5. Fenton, A., & Krahn, T. (2007). Autism, neurodiversity, and equality beyond the “normal.” Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 2(2), 1–6.

6. Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis, 20(1), 20–30.

7. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan Education.

8. Reindal, S. M. (2008). A social relational model of disability: A theoretical framework for special needs education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 135–146.

9. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28.

10. UPIAS. (1975). Fundamental principles of disability. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.

11. Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms & definitions. Neurocosmopolitanism.

12. Wiklund, J., Yu, W., Tucker, R., & Marino, L. (2018). ADHD, impulsivity and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 9, 153–169.