Ewe Would Have Thought It?
“We live on a neurodiverse planet where amoral nature generates endless genetic diversity… What neurodiversity brings us is a challenge to find a place for everyone and to distribute the bounty fairly” — Judy Singer. Founder of neurodiversity
The neurodiversity movement is a social and political powerhouse that began as a bold and necessary idea. It reframed autism, ADHD, and other neurological differences not as defects, but as variations — part of the natural spectrum of human minds.
It helped dismantle shame.
It secured rights.
It empowered countless people to understand themselves not as broken, but as different.
This was a social and political triumph.
But over time, it hardened into a narrative.
One that asserts neurodivergence is:
• Entirely genetic
• Inherently fixed
• And because it is natural, it must be celebrated
Nature, as Singer reminds us, is impartial. It brings forth all forms of life, but it also gives rise to illnesses like cancer. It fosters language and creativity, yet it can lead to trauma and conditions like type 2 diabetes and obesity.
All of these exist within nature. Yet, we don’t celebrate them. Instead, we strive to understand these aspects so we can intervene wisely, ethically, and with compassion.
The problem isn’t with neurodiversity itself. Rather, it’s the assumption that if something is natural, it must be unavoidable or beneficial. Asking why this is the case is often viewed as dangerous.
To protect our results, we’ve smothered our curiosity. In this quest for safety, we might be overlooking something profound. What if some neurodivergent traits—just some, not all—aren’t set in stone? What if they are simply ways our brains adapt to…