Why the Labels Matter
- Amelia Loveland
- Oct 2, 2025
- 41 min read
Updated: Dec 20, 2025
The Imperative of Diagnosis in a Neurodiverse World
Abstract
The diagnostic process for neurodivergent conditions represents a critical juncture in the lives of millions of individuals worldwide. This comprehensive analysis examines the multifaceted importance of formal diagnosis within the neurodiversity paradigm, challenging traditional deficit-based models while acknowledging the practical necessity of diagnostic labels in accessing support and accommodations.
Through an extensive examination of psychological, social, educational, and economic factors, this essay demonstrates that diagnosis serves as both a tool of empowerment and a gateway to authentic living. The analysis encompasses early childhood through adult diagnosis, exploring the cascading effects of timely versus delayed recognition of neurodivergent traits. By synthesising current research with lived experiences and community perspectives, this work advocates for a paradigm shift toward neuro-affirmative diagnostic practices that honour neurodiversity as a fundamental aspect of human variation while ensuring access to necessary supports and services.
Introduction
A formal assessment and diagnosis can be a profound and empowering step for neurodivergent individuals. My intention with this essay is to explore the critical importance of a timely diagnosis, particularly early in life, and reframe it not as a deficit-based label but as a valuable tool for self-understanding and a gateway to essential support. By establishing neurodiversity as a natural and valuable form of human variation, this analysis moves beyond a pathological view to a more nuanced, neuro-affirmative paradigm. It will detail the significant psychological, emotional, and practical benefits of diagnosis, contrasting them with the cascading challenges faced by undiagnosed individuals.
Ultimately, this essay asserts that a diagnosis serves as a vital starting point for an authentic and well-supported life, and highlights the ongoing societal shift toward greater acceptance and inclusion for all neurotypes.
The complexity of neurodivergent diagnosis extends far beyond the clinical encounter between patient and practitioner. It encompasses a web of social, cultural, economic, and personal factors that intersect to create either pathways to support or barriers to understanding. In contemporary society, where approximately 15-20% of the population exhibits some form of neurodivergence (Doyle, 2020), the imperative for accurate, timely, and compassionate diagnostic practices has never been more urgent. This essay seeks to unpack these complexities while advocating for a fundamental reconceptualisation of how we approach neurodivergent diagnosis in the 21st century.
The diagnostic journey represents more than a medical procedure; it constitutes a pivotal moment of identity formation, community connection, and access to resources. For many individuals, the moment of diagnosis represents a profound shift in self-understanding, often described as a "coming home" to oneself after years of confusion, self-blame, and attempted conformity to neurotypical expectations.
This transformation extends beyond the individual to impact families, educational institutions, workplaces, and broader communities, creating ripple effects that can span generations.
1. The Neurodiversity Paradigm - A Foundational Framework
1.1 Defining Neurodiversity: Beyond a Single "Normal"
The concept of neurodiversity serves as a powerful framework for understanding human brain function, positing that the diversity within areas such as sensory processing, cognition, social comfort, and motor abilities represents natural neurobiological differences rather than deficits or disorders (Chapman, 2020).
The term 'neurodiversity' emerged from early online autistic communities in the mid-1990s and was academically popularised by Australian sociologist Judy Singer in her 1998 honours thesis. Singer, who describes herself as being 'somewhere on the autistic spectrum,' documented and analysed this emerging social movement, providing academic legitimacy to concepts that were being developed collaboratively within online autistic spaces (Botha et al., 2024; Singer, 1998). It was originally intended as a social justice movement to combat the stigma faced by autistic people, those with ADHD, and people with learning disorders. This paradigm challenges the notion of a single "correct" or "typical" way for a human brain to function, instead asserting that a wide range of perceptions and responses to the world should be accepted and encouraged (den Houting, 2019).
From a neuroscientific perspective, this diversity is not merely a philosophical concept but a quantifiable reality. Human brain characteristics and their expressions, including anatomical traits like the size of a brain region or functional traits like the activity level of a brain system, vary across individuals (Goldberg, 2023). The neurodiversity framework distinguishes between "neurotypical" individuals, whose brain and cognitive development fall within the statistically typical range, and "neurodivergent" individuals, who represent the statistically less common neurotypes (Goldberg, 2023). This view reframes neurological differences as a form of human diversity, akin to other forms of biological diversity such as ethnicity, gender, or culture (Leadbitter et al., 2021).
The language used within this paradigm is a fundamental statement about identity. The growing advocacy for identity-first language, such as "an autistic person" instead of "a person with autism," is a deliberate choice that reflects this shift in perspective. Proponents argue that using "autistic person" conveys that autism is an inherent, inseparable aspect of an individual's identity, a core part of their being, similar to how one might refer to a person's race, gender, or culture. This language challenges the traditional medical model, which often uses person-first language, a practice that can reinforce the assumption that neurodivergence is a disease or defect to be cured. While some parents and professionals prefer person-first language to avoid stigma, the neurodiversity movement's emphasis on identity-first language is rooted in the belief that one's neurotype is a meaningful and valuable aspect of who they are, not an affliction to be overcome (Leadbitter et al., 2021).
The neurodiversity paradigm also encompasses a broader understanding of human cognitive variation that extends beyond diagnostic categories (Walker, 2021). It recognises that neurological differences exist on continua rather than as discrete categories, acknowledging that many individuals may exhibit neurodivergent traits without meeting full diagnostic criteria. This perspective challenges binary thinking about "normal" versus "abnormal" brain function, instead promoting a more nuanced understanding of the spectrum of human neurological experience (Chapman, 2021).
1.2 Historical Context and Evolution of Understanding
The evolution of neurodiversity thinking represents a significant departure from historical approaches to neurological differences. Throughout much of the 20th century, conditions now understood as neurodivergent were primarily viewed through a medical lens focused on pathology, deficiency, and cure (Chapman, 2020). The medical model, while valuable for understanding biological mechanisms and developing interventions, often overlooked the subjective experiences and strengths of neurodivergent individuals.
The emergence of the neurodiversity movement in the late 20th century coincided with broader disability rights movements and the development of the social model of disability. This confluence of ideas created space for neurodivergent individuals to articulate their own experiences and challenge prevailing narratives about their conditions. The early internet played a crucial role in this development, providing platforms for autistic individuals and others to connect, share experiences, and develop collective advocacy strategies. (Botha et al., 2024; Singer, 1998)
The paradigm shift from pathology to diversity has been gradual and continues to evolve. Early neurodiversity advocates faced significant resistance from medical professionals, researchers, and even some parents who feared that reframing conditions like autism as differences rather than disorders would reduce access to services and support (Leadbitter et al., 2021). However, as the movement has matured, it has become clear that embracing neurodiversity does not preclude recognising the need for support and accommodation.
1.3 The Paradigm Shift: From Deficit to Difference
The neurodiversity paradigm stands in stark contrast to the traditional medical model of disability, which views conditions like autism or ADHD as pathologies to be treated, cured, or prevented. This prevailing medical view often frames neurocognitive differences as deficits, placing the responsibility on the individual to change and assimilate into a society designed for the neurotypical majority. For example, the medical model suggests that a person with autism is disabled because of their neurological makeup (Kapp et al., 2013).
An alternative, the social model of disability, offers a different perspective by arguing that disabling factors are not inherent to the individual but rather reside in societal structures and environments (Oliver, 1990). From this perspective, a neurodivergent individual is not disabled by their neurology but by a rigid school schedule, a loud and bright workplace, or a lack of understanding from those around them (den Houting, 2019).
The neurodiversity paradigm synthesises these two views, offering a more comprehensive and nuanced middle ground. It acknowledges that some neurobiological differences can create intrinsic challenges for an individual regardless of their environment, while simultaneously asserting that many of the difficulties experienced by neurodivergent people are a result of societal barriers and the absence of accommodating structures (Chapman, 2020).
This synthesis is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between individual differences and environmental factors. For instance, an autistic individual may have genuine difficulties with certain types of sensory input or social communication that exist regardless of environmental modifications. However, the degree to which these differences become disabling depends heavily on the level of understanding, accommodation, and support available in their environment.
A central and critical consequence of this paradigm is the paradox of diagnosis. To gain the protections and support advocated by the social and neurodiversity models, an individual must first be identified and categorised within the medical model's deficit-based framework (Chapman, 2020). The act of receiving a diagnosis, which inherently labels a person as having a "disorder" or "disability," is the very key that unlocks access to therapies, educational support, legal protections, and workplace accommodations.
This means that while the philosophical goal is to move away from pathologising differences, the practical reality is that the diagnostic label is a necessary tool for navigating a society that has not yet fully embraced true neuro-inclusion (Graby, 2017).
The diagnostic label, therefore, transforms from a signifier of pathology into a powerful instrument for empowerment, allowing the individual to receive the targeted support needed to thrive in a world that is not yet designed for them.
1.4 Intersectionality and Multiple Identities
The neurodiversity paradigm must also grapple with the complex reality of intersectionality – the ways in which neurodivergence intersects with other aspects of identity including race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, and culture. These intersections significantly impact both the likelihood of receiving an accurate diagnosis and the quality of support available post-diagnosis (Mandell, 2017).
Research consistently demonstrates that neurodivergence manifests differently across different demographic groups, and diagnostic tools and criteria have historically been developed based on observations of white, middle-class, cisgender males. This has led to systematic underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of women, girls, individuals from racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Crenshaw, 1989; Mandell et al., 2009).
The intersection of neurodivergence with gender identity presents particularly complex considerations. Emerging research suggests higher rates of gender diversity among autistic individuals compared to the general population, raising important questions about the relationship between neurological differences and gender identity development (Strang et al., 2014). These intersections require nuanced understanding and culturally responsive diagnostic practices that acknowledge the full complexity of human identity.
1.5 Under the Banner of Neurodivergence: A Shared Neurocognitive Basis
The term neurodivergence is a broad umbrella encompassing a wide range of conditions that involve neurological differences from the traditional norm. While most commonly associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the concept extends to a variety of other conditions that share a basis in different neurocognitive processing (Goldberg, 2023).
These conditions are characterised by unique ways of thinking, learning, and perceiving the world, often involving distinct patterns in social communication, sensory processing, and executive function (Pisciotta, 2024).
The shared basis in neurological differences means that individuals may present with unique combinations of traits, and it is common for neurodivergent people to have co-occurring conditions. For instance, an autistic person may also have a learning difficulty like dyslexia or dyscalculia, or a person with ADHD may experience co-occurring anxiety or other mental health conditions (Pisciotta, 2024).
The following table provides a clear overview of some of the most common forms of neurodivergence and their associated characteristics (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Condition | Key Characteristics |
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | Unique social communication challenges, sensory sensitivities, repetitive behaviours, deep interests, and a preference for routines. Manifestations can include difficulty with nonverbal communication, challenges with social interactions, and either heightened sensitivity or reduced sensitivity to sensory stimuli like bright lights or loud noises. |
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) | Characterised by patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Symptoms of inattentiveness can include difficulty staying focused, disorganisation, and frequent daydreaming, while hyperactivity-impulsivity may present as restlessness or acting on impulse. |
Dyslexia | A learning difficulty that primarily affects skills related to reading, writing, and spelling, often involving slow reading speed and difficulty with organisation. This condition does not impact a person's intelligence. |
Dyscalculia | A specific learning challenge that affects how the brain understands quantities, numbers, and mathematical concepts. Individuals may struggle with recalling math facts, estimating measurements, or understanding mathematical logic. |
Dyspraxia (Developmental Coordination Disorder) | A condition affecting physical coordination, which can lead to clumsiness or difficulty with motor tasks. |
Tourette's Syndrome | A condition that causes a person to make involuntary, repetitive movements and vocalisations called tics . |
1.6 The Spectrum of Support Needs
One of the most significant contributions of modern neurodiversity thinking is the recognition that support needs exist on a spectrum and can vary significantly both between individuals and within the same individual across different contexts and times (Pellicano & Den Houting, 2022). The traditional approach of categorising individuals as "high-functioning" or "low-functioning" has been largely abandoned in favour of more nuanced descriptions that acknowledge the complexity of neurodivergent experiences (Alvares et al., 2020).
The concept of "spiky profiles" – where an individual may have significant strengths in some areas while requiring substantial support in others – has become increasingly important in understanding neurodivergent individuals (Doyle, 2020). For example, a person might have exceptional abilities in mathematics or pattern recognition while simultaneously requiring support with daily living skills or social communication. This recognition has important implications for both diagnosis and support planning (Happé & Frith, 2006).
2. The Critical Case for Diagnosis
2.1 The Psychological and Emotional Imperative: A Narrative of Self-Discovery
For many individuals, a formal diagnosis of a neurodivergent condition can be a profoundly life-changing event, offering a sense of self-acceptance and understanding that may have been missing for a lifetime. This realisation often brings an immense sense of relief, as it provides a new language and a clear explanation for lifelong struggles that were previously attributed to personal failures. A diagnosis reframes a person's life story, shifting the narrative from one of personal shortcomings and self-blame to one of neurological difference. The thought, "ahhh, that's why I did/do that!" captures the immediate validation and sense of clarity that a diagnosis can provide (Leedham et al., 2020).
The profound psychological impact of an undiagnosed neurodivergence stems from the constant pressure to conform to neurotypical expectations. To navigate social and professional environments, many neurodivergent individuals, particularly women, develop complex coping mechanisms known as "masking" or "camouflaging". This involves consciously imitating the behaviour of others, rehearsing conversations, and suppressing natural self-stimulatory actions (stimming) to fit in (Hull et al., 2017).
This continuous effort is physically and emotionally exhausting and leads to a profound disconnection from one's authentic self, to the extent that some individuals report having no idea who they truly are (Leedham et al., 2020). This chronic state of stress and self-denial is a primary cause of the high rates of anxiety, depression, and burnout observed in undiagnosed neurodivergent adults (Cage et al., 2018).
A diagnosis, by providing a validated identity and an external reason for internal struggles, is the critical first step toward unmasking and reclaiming one's well-being. It allows for self-forgiveness and a deepened sense of self-awareness, which enables the creation of a life that works for one's unique brain rather than forcing it into an ill-fitting mould (Leedham et al., 2020).
2.2 The Trauma of Misunderstanding
The psychological impact of living undiagnosed extends beyond simple confusion or difficulty. For many neurodivergent individuals, the experience of trying to navigate a neurotypical world without understanding their differences can be genuinely traumatic (Rumball et al., 2020). The constant message that their natural ways of being are wrong, inappropriate, or problematic can lead to deep-seated feelings of shame and inadequacy. This trauma is often compounded by well-meaning but misguided attempts by parents, teachers, and others to "correct" neurodivergent behaviours (Pearson & Rose, 2021).
2.4 Identity Formation and Self-Concept
The role of diagnosis in identity formation cannot be overstated. For many neurodivergent individuals, receiving a diagnosis represents the first time they have had access to a positive framework for understanding their differences (Hickey et al., 2018). Prior to diagnosis, many individuals construct their identity around their perceived failures and inadequacies (Young et al., 2008). A diagnosis provides an alternative narrative – one that frames their experiences as the result of neurological differences rather than personal shortcomings (Leedham et al., 2020).
2.5 The Hereditary Link: A Shared Neurobiological Foundation
Neurodivergence has a strong genetic basis, meaning it often runs in families (Faraone & Larsson, 2019; Sandin et al., 2017). Evidence from extensive family and twin studies consistently shows that both Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are highly heritable.
Heritability estimates for ADHD are approximately 74% based on meta-analysis of twin studies, while for ASD they range from 60-93% depending on study methodology, with more recent estimates suggesting heritability of approximately 80-83% (Faraone & Larsson, 2019; Sandin et al., 2017).
Studies indicate substantial genetic overlap between ADHD and ASD, with genetic correlation estimates ranging from approximately 0.36 to 0.45 based on genome-wide association studies, suggesting shared genetic architecture between the conditions (Ghirardi et al., 2018; Stergiakouli et al., 2017). This means that while genetics provides the initial blueprint, a person's individual neurotype is a unique expression of these inherited traits, shaped further by environmental factors. Understanding this hereditary link is an important reason for seeking a formal diagnosis, particularly if neurodivergence is already present in close family members (Sandin et al., 2017).
2.6 Epigenetic Factors and Environmental Influences
While genetics play a crucial role in neurodivergence, the expression of neurodivergent traits is also influenced by environmental factors and epigenetic mechanisms. Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression that do not involve alterations to the underlying DNA sequence but can be influenced by environmental factors and passed down through generations (Loke et al., 2015).
Research suggests that factors such as prenatal stress, birth complications, early childhood experiences, and exposure to certain environmental toxins may influence the expression of neurodivergent traits (Modabbernia et al., 2017). This does not mean that these factors cause neurodivergence, but rather that they may influence how neurodivergent traits manifest in a particular individual (Chaste & Leboyer, 2012).
2.7 The Profound Benefits of Early Life Diagnosis: Leveraging Brain Plasticity
The timing of a diagnosis, particularly for children, holds significant importance. The most compelling argument for early diagnosis and support is rooted in the neuroscientific principle of brain plasticity. This refers to the young brain's heightened ability to adapt, reorganise, and form new connections (Sandbank et al., 2023). When support begins during this period of maximum pliability, it has a far greater chance of guiding the brain to create stronger, more effective neural pathways (Dawson et al., 2010).
In Australia, there are no specific age restrictions for an autism and/or ADHD diagnosis, and a child can be evaluated at any age if there are developmental concerns or if you have close family that have had their neurodivergence diagnosed (Sandin et al., 2017). While assessments can be performed on children as young as 12 to 24 months, with some screening tools able to identify children with a high likelihood of autism with 83% accuracy at this age, the average age of diagnosis in Australia remains between four and six years old (Barbaro et al., 2022; Samecki, 2022).
The presentation of neurodivergent traits often differs between genders, which can significantly impact the timing of a diagnosis. The widely used diagnostic criteria for conditions like autism were largely developed based on how they present in males, leading to a tendency for girls to be underdiagnosed or diagnosed at a later age than their male peers. Research suggests that girls are often more effective at camouflaging or "masking" their autistic traits by imitating their neurotypical peers, which can cause them to "slip under the radar" of diagnostic tools. While the male-to-female diagnosis ratio is commonly cited as 4:1, systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that the actual ratio is closer to 3:1, with ratios varying based on intellectual ability, with the disparity greater among individuals without intellectual disability (Loomes et al., 2017)
Research consistently demonstrates that the sooner a child with a neurodevelopmental condition receives support, the better their long-term developmental outcomes are likely to be. Early support can help children develop skills and abilities that promote their long-term well-being and independence, contributing to a fulfilling and successful life (Sandbank et al., 2023).
Critical Periods in Development
The concept of critical periods in development is fundamental to understanding why early diagnosis and support are so important. Critical periods are specific time windows during which the brain is particularly receptive to certain types of learning and development (Knudsen, 2004). During these periods, the brain exhibits heightened plasticity, making it more responsive to environmental influences and neurodiversity-affirming therapies and supports (Hensch, 2005).
For language development, for example, the critical period extends from birth to approximately age seven, with peak sensitivity occurring in the first few years of life (Kuhl, 2011). Children who receive speech and language support during this critical period are more likely to develop effective communication skills than those who receive support later in life. Similarly, social skills development has critical periods, particularly in early childhood when children are naturally motivated to engage with others and learn social conventions (Meltzoff et al., 2009).
The Role of Family Systems
Early diagnosis not only benefits the individual child but also has profound effects on family systems. When a child receives an early diagnosis, families can begin to understand and respond to the child's needs more effectively. This understanding can reduce frustration and conflict within the family and improve parent-child relationships (DePape & Lindsay, 2015). Parents who understand their child's neurodivergence are better equipped to advocate for their child's needs in educational and community settings (Boshoff et al., 2021). They can make informed decisions about neurodiversity-affirming therapies and supports, and they can help their child develop a positive sense of identity from an early age.
2.8 Educational Implications of Early Diagnosis
The educational benefits of early diagnosis cannot be overstated. When schools understand a child's neurodivergent profile, they can implement appropriate accommodations and modifications from the beginning of the child's educational journey. This proactive approach is far more effective than the reactive approach that often occurs when children struggle for years before receiving a diagnosis (Vivanti et al., 2014).
Early diagnosis allows for the development of Individualised Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 plans that are tailored to the child's specific needs and strengths. These plans can include accommodations such as extended time for assignments, alternative testing formats, sensory supports, and social skills instruction (Hume et al., 2021).
The following table summarises the key differences in outcomes between early and late diagnosis.
Aspect of Life | Outcomes of Early Diagnosis and Support | Challenges of Late or Undiagnosed Status |
Developmental Skills | Targeted, neurodiversity-affirming therapies improve social, communication, and motor skills during the period of peak brain plasticity (Sandbank et al., 2023). | Missed critical developmental windows, leading to more ingrained challenges and a greater need for support later in life (Sandbank et al., 2023). |
Academic Performance | Personalised learning plans and accommodations lead to improved academic outcomes and a love for learning (Department of Education WA, n.d.). Children may require less help in school later on (Cage et al., 2018). | Significant academic underachievement and frustration, leading to poor self-esteem and a reluctance to participate in school (Cage et al., 2018). |
Mental Health & Self-Perception | A diagnosis provides a validated explanation for differences, reducing self-blame, anxiety, and depression from a young age (Leedham et al., 2020). | Higher rates of anxiety, depression, and burnout due to masking, social isolation, and chronic stress (Hull et al., 2017). |
Family Dynamics | Clarifies behaviours and sets realistic expectations, improving communication and reducing misunderstandings and strained relationships (Leedham et al., 2020). | Behaviours may be misinterpreted as laziness, defiance, or defiance, creating confusion and strained relationships within the family (Leedham et al., 2020). |
3. The Life-Long Consequences of Undiagnosed Neurodivergence
3.1 The Cascade of Challenges
The lack of a formal diagnosis, particularly during critical developmental periods, can have significant and lasting negative consequences that ripple across an individual's life. Without an understanding of their neurological differences, individuals are left to navigate a world that is fundamentally misaligned with their needs, often leading to a wide range of psychological, social, and physical struggles (Cage et al., 2018).
A primary and deeply damaging consequence of undiagnosed neurodivergence is the high prevalence of co-occurring mental health conditions. Undiagnosed adults report higher levels of anxiety, depression, and burnout because their struggles remain unexplained and misunderstood, forcing them to internalise negative feelings and develop low self-esteem (Cage et al., 2018).
As discussed in Section 2.1, the immense stress of masking to fit into neurotypical environments is a direct driver of these mental health challenges. Undiagnosed neurodivergence is also linked to higher rates of substance abuse, increased medical incidents and injuries, and a greater risk of social problems and legal issues (French et al., 2023).
In the workplace, a missed diagnosis can lead to poor job performance, lower job satisfaction, missed career opportunities, and even job loss, as employees are unable to advocate for the accommodations they need (Doyle, 2020).
3.2 The Psychological Toll of Chronic Misunderstanding
The psychological impact of living with undiagnosed neurodivergence extends far beyond temporary confusion or difficulty. For many individuals, the experience represents a form of chronic trauma that can have lasting effects on mental health and well-being (Bargiela et al., 2016). This trauma often stems from repeated experiences of being misunderstood, criticised, or rejected for behaviours and traits that are intrinsic to their neurotype (Milton, 2012).
One of the most damaging aspects of this experience is the development of internalised ableism – the unconscious acceptance of negative societal messages about disability and difference (Botha & Frost, 2020). Individuals may come to believe that their struggles are the result of personal failings rather than neurological differences. This can lead to a persistent sense of shame and inadequacy that affects all areas of life (Cooper et al., 2017).
3.3 Academic and Professional Underachievement
Undiagnosed neurodivergence frequently precipitates significant underachievement in both academic and professional domains. This phenomenon is often observed in "Twice-Exceptional" (2e) individuals—those who possess high intellectual capability alongside a neurodevelopmental difference (Baum et al., 2021). Without appropriate identification and support, the disability often masks the individual's aptitude, preventing them from reaching their full potential despite significant cognitive strengths (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
In academic settings, the behavior of undiagnosed students is often misinterpreted. Research indicates that educators frequently misattribute signs of executive dysfunction—such as difficulty initiating tasks or regulating attention—to character flaws. Consequently, these students are liable to be labeled as "lazy," "unmotivated," or "defiant" when they struggle with tasks that appear simple to neurotypical peers (Metzger & Hamilton, 2021). This persistent stigmatisation can cause students to internalise these negative labels, leading to academic avoidance and a deterioration of self-efficacy.
In the professional sphere, undiagnosed neurodivergent individuals face significant barriers leading to the "Neurodiversity Employment Gap." Struggles often stem not from a lack of skill, but from sensory overload caused by environmental factors (such as open-plan offices) and friction regarding social dynamics (Doyle, 2020). This is often framed by the "Double Empathy Problem," where communication breakdowns occur due to mutual misunderstandings between neurodivergent and neurotypical communication styles rather than an individual deficit (Szechy et al., 2024). Without accommodations, this can result in a cycle of underemployment and frequent job loss, despite the individual possessing high-value technical abilities.
3.4 Social Isolation and Relationship Difficulties
The social challenges associated with undiagnosed neurodivergence can be particularly devastating, contributing to significantly higher rates of loneliness and social isolation compared to the general population (Mazurek, 2014). Many neurodivergent individuals struggle to navigate neurotypical social conventions and nonverbal cues. Without a framework for understanding these differences, they frequently internalise these interactions as personal failures, leading to withdrawal and a "thwarted sense of belonging" (Pelton & Cassidy, 2017).
The process of "camouflaging" or "masking"—suppressing neurodivergent traits to appear neurotypical—severely interferes with the development of authentic relationships. Research indicates that while masking may facilitate superficial social acceptance, it comes at a high psychological cost, often obstructing the formation of deep, meaningful connections because the individual feels their true self is rejected (Hull et al., 2017). This creates a paradox where individuals feel lonely even when socially active, as their connections are based on a "performative" self (Miller & Rees, 2021).
Romantic relationships can be uniquely challenging for undiagnosed individuals due to the "Double Empathy Problem," where breakdowns in communication arise from mutual misunderstandings between neurotypes rather than a deficit in the neurodivergent partner alone (Milton, 2012). Additionally, unrecognized sensory needs (e.g., touch aversion or auditory sensitivity) and executive function differences (e.g., forgetting important dates due to ADHD) are often misread by partners as a lack of care or commitment, leading to chronic conflict (Tuckman, 2019).
3.6 Physical Health Consequences
The stress of living with undiagnosed neurodivergence frequently manifests in severe physical health consequences, a phenomenon often described as "Allostatic Load"—the cumulative physiological wear and tear on the body caused by chronic stress management (McEwen, 2005). Research indicates that this persistent state of hypervigilance (constantly scanning for social threats or sensory dangers) keeps the nervous system in a fight-or-flight mode, contributing to chronic muscle tension, migraines, and sleep disorders (Bjelland, 2025). Over time, this elevated stress response is associated with long-term risks, including immune system dysfunction and increased susceptibility to cardiovascular disease (Quadt et al., 2024).
Furthermore, neurodivergent individuals frequently experience co-occurring medical conditions that go unrecognised due to "Diagnostic Overshadowing" (Mason et al., 2019). This occurs when clinicians attribute physical symptoms solely to a patient's neurodivergence or "behavioral issues" rather than investigating organic causes. For instance, gastrointestinal distress is highly prevalent in the autistic population due to the gut-brain axis connection; however, valid medical conditions like inflammatory bowel disease or severe reflux are often dismissed as "psychosomatic" or anxiety-related, leaving the individual in chronic pain without treatment (Leader et al., 2022).
3.8 Intersectional Barriers to Diagnosis
The systemic nature of missed diagnosis is compounded by intersectional barriers such as gender bias, cultural bias, and racial bias.
Gender Bias
The gender bias in diagnostic practices represents one of the most significant systemic barriers to accurate diagnosis. Historically, research on conditions like autism and ADHD has focused primarily on male subjects, leading to diagnostic criteria that may not adequately capture how these conditions present in females and gender-diverse individuals. For autism specifically, the male-centric diagnostic criteria emphasise externalised behaviours such as overt repetitive movements and direct social communication challenges. However, research suggests that autistic females are more likely to engage in internalised repetitive behaviours (such as mental rumination) and may be more successful at mimicking social behaviours, leading their autism to be overlooked (Loomes et al., 2017).
Cultural and Racial Bias
Cultural and racial bias in diagnostic practices also contributes to missed diagnoses, particularly among individuals from minority backgrounds. Diagnostic tools and criteria have been developed primarily based on observations of white, middle-class populations, and may not adequately account for cultural differences in behaviour, communication, and social interaction. Systemic ableism and societal bias result in significant disparities in identification (Mandell, 2017). Additionally, systemic barriers such as limited access to healthcare, language barriers, and mistrust of medical institutions can prevent individuals from minority backgrounds from seeking or receiving accurate diagnoses.
4. The Practicalities of Diagnosis and Support
4.1 Unlocking Support and Therapies: A Gateway to a Better Life
A formal diagnosis serves as a crucial gateway to a wide array of specialised support and services that are otherwise inaccessible (Leedham et al., 2020; Saggers et al., 2016). In Australia, a diagnosis can qualify a person for support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which provides funding for “reasonable and necessary” support to help individuals with disabilities pursue their goals and increase their independence . The NDIS Early Childhood Approach specifically supports children under nine with developmental delays or disabilities, allowing them to access support at a crucial stage of development, often even without a formal diagnosis for children younger than six if there are developmental concerns.
The therapies and services unlocked by a diagnosis are designed to address specific developmental areas. These may include speech therapy to enhance language abilities, occupational therapy to aid in developing fine motor skills and daily living skills, and behavioural support (Whitehouse et al., 2021). For school-aged children, a diagnosis enables the creation of an Individualised Education Plan (IEP), a plan written specifically for the child to address their academic and personal needs (Poed et al., 2022).
A diagnosis also opens the door to mental health support, including therapy and, where appropriate, medication to address co-occurring conditions such as anxiety and depression. Without a diagnosis, individuals and families are often left to navigate these challenges in isolation, missing out on crucial support that can lead to improved well-being and a higher quality of life (Leedham et al., 2020).
4.2 Therapeutic Supports and Evidence-Based Practices
The range of therapeutic supports available to diagnosed neurodivergent individuals has expanded significantly in recent years, with an increasing emphasis on evidence-based practices that are aligned with neurodiversity principles. These supports focus on building skills, enhancing communication, and improving quality of life rather than attempting to eliminate neurodivergent traits (Ganz et al., 2018).
Speech and language therapy, for example, has evolved to focus on functional communication rather than forcing individuals to communicate in neurotypical ways (Sandham et al., 2022). This might involve teaching alternative communication methods such as sign language, picture exchange systems, or assistive technology for individuals who struggle with verbal communication (Lorah et al., 2015). The goal is to help individuals communicate effectively in ways that work for them, rather than forcing them to conform to typical communication patterns.
Occupational therapy takes a similar approach, focusing on helping individuals develop the skills they need for daily living while respecting their sensory and motor differences (Morrison et al., 2025). This might involve teaching adaptive strategies for managing sensory sensitivities, developing fine motor skills through preferred activities, or modifying environments to better meet individual needs (Joosten & Bundy, 2010).
4.3 Comprehensive Assessment and Individualised Planning
The diagnostic process itself has become more comprehensive and individualised, recognising that neurodivergent individuals have unique profiles of strengths and challenges. Modern diagnostic assessments often include not only standardised tests and clinical observations but also detailed developmental histories, input from multiple informants, and assessment of adaptive functioning in real-world settings (Ashburner et al., 2014).
Following diagnosis, the development of individualised support plans has become standard practice. These plans take into account the individual’s specific strengths, challenges, preferences, and goals, and are developed collaboratively with the individual and their family. The plans are regularly reviewed and updated as needs and circumstances change.
4.4 Legal and Workplace Accommodations: Levelling the Playing Field
Beyond therapeutic support, a formal diagnosis provides a person with legal protections and the right to “reasonable adjustments” in educational and professional settings. In Australia, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 makes it unlawful to discriminate against people with disabilities in areas such as employment and education (Disability Discrimination Act, 1992). This legislation, in some cases, requires organisations to make modifications to their environments, tasks, or conditions to ensure people with disabilities have the necessary support to perform their roles or access services effectively (People with Disability Australia, 2022).
The purpose of these accommodations is to “level the playing field” and remove the environmental barriers that may prevent neurodivergent individuals from reaching their full potential. The key to successful accommodations is a personalised approach, as the needs of each neurodivergent individual are unique (Lovett, 2010). For this reason, a “one-size-fits-all” model is not effective; employers and educators should consult with the individual to understand their specific access needs and collaboratively find solutions.
4.5 The Interactive Process of Accommodation
The process of implementing accommodations is ideally interactive, involving ongoing communication between the individual, their support team, and the organisation providing accommodations. This process begins with the individual disclosing their diagnosis and requesting accommodations, but it should continue with regular check-ins to ensure that accommodations are working effectively and to make adjustments as needed (Nevala et al., 2025).
Effective accommodation processes also involve education and awareness-building within organisations. When colleagues and supervisors understand neurodivergence and the purpose of accommodations, they are more likely to be supportive and collaborative in implementation (Doyle, 2020).
The following table provides a clear list of examples of accommodations that can be requested or provided in both educational and professional settings.
Setting | Type of Adjustment | Examples of Accommodations |
Education | Physical & Sensory | Adapted seating plans, quiet spaces, use of fidget toys, use of ear defenders in lessons (Saggers et al., 2016). |
Process & Academic | Visual timetables, extended time on exams and assignments, assistive technology like laptops or dictation software, differentiated curriculum, modified start and end times (Saggers et al., 2016). | |
Workplace | Physical & Sensory | Quiet workspace, use of noise-cancelling headphones, dimmable lighting, fixed workspaces rather than hot desks, fragrance-free environments (Lindsay et al., 2018). |
Process & Communication | Flexible working hours, regular or extended breaks, clear written instructions and communication, job coaching or mentoring, assistive technology such as text-to-speech software (Lindsay et al., 2018). |
4.6 Technology and Assistive Supports
The role of technology in supporting neurodivergent individuals has grown exponentially in recent years. Assistive technology can help individuals overcome challenges related to communication, organisation, sensory processing, and social interaction. These technologies range from simple apps that provide visual schedules and reminders to sophisticated communication devices and environmental control systems (Assistive Technology, n.d., Technology for Autistic Adults, n.d.)
For individuals with communication challenges, assistive technology might include speech-generating devices, communication apps, or text-to-speech software. For those with executive functioning challenges, technology might include scheduling apps, task management systems, or reminder tools. Sensory support technology might include noise-cancelling headphones, weighted blankets, or environmental control systems (Rowe et al., 2011).
4.7 Navigating Funding Systems
Navigating funding systems can be complex and overwhelming for individuals and families who are new to the disability support system (Mills et al., 2025). The NDIS, for example, involves a detailed planning process that requires individuals to articulate their goals and support needs in ways that align with the scheme’s framework and language (EducationDaily, 2025). Many individuals and families benefit from support in navigating these systems, whether from disability advocates, support coordinators, or community organisations.
4.8 Community Connection and Peer Support
Finally, a diagnosis is a crucial step toward connecting with community support. It allows individuals to find and engage with others who share similar experiences, reducing feelings of isolation and fostering a sense of belonging and community (Verkooijen et al., 2025).
There are many Australian-based organisations, some of which are neurodivergent-led, that offer a wide variety of support groups for neurodivergent individuals, parents, couples, and family members, providing a safe space to share experiences, gain perspective, and improve mental well-being . The connection to community is a vital part of the healing process after a diagnosis, reinforcing that a person is not alone in their journey.
4.8.1 The Role of Peer Support
Peer support – support provided by individuals who share similar experiences – has been recognised as a particularly valuable form of support for neurodivergent individuals and their families. Peer support can provide practical advice, emotional support, and role modeling that is difficult to obtain from professionals who do not share the lived experience of neurodivergence. (Verkooijen et al., 2025)
4.8.2 Online Communities and Digital Connection
The rise of online communities has been particularly significant for the neurodivergent community, providing opportunities for connection that might not be available in local communities. Online spaces allow individuals to connect with others who share their specific interests, challenges, or experiences, regardless of geographic location. However, it is important to note that online communities can vary significantly in quality and approach. (Angulo, 2023)
5. A Nuanced Discussion and Community Perspectives
5.1 The Debate: Acknowledging Challenges Without Pathologising Identity
While the neurodiversity paradigm has gained significant traction, it is not without its controversies and debates, particularly within the autism community. A primary criticism is that portraying neurodivergence as a “mere-difference” can be seen as downplaying the significant and often severe challenges faced by individuals with high support needs (Chapman, 2020) . Critics, who are often family members or caregivers, express concern that this perspective could lead to overlooking necessary care and support, minimising the profound difficulties that a person with high support needs may face regardless of environmental accommodations. They argue that even in a fully accommodating society, some individuals would still require substantial assistance to live a safe and fulfilling life (Chapman, 2020).
Crucially, this entire debate must be viewed through a systemic lens, acknowledging that the ability to even obtain a formal diagnosis and access support is a privilege heavily influenced by socioeconomic status, race, and location. The challenges faced by many neurodivergent individuals are compounded by systemic failures, not just inherent differences.
However, advocates within the neurodiversity movement counter that this criticism misunderstands the core principles of the paradigm. The movement is deeply committed to the inclusion of all neurotypes, especially those with high support needs, who are often the most excluded and mistreated people in society. Proponents of the paradigm argue that embracing neurodiversity does not mean refusing all therapies or accepting limitations (Leadbitter et al., 2021). Instead, it means approaching differences with a discerning lens and a focus on fostering autonomy and self-determination.
5.2 Balancing Rights and Needs
The tension between rights-based and needs-based approaches to neurodivergence represents one of the most complex aspects of the contemporary debate. Rights-based approaches emphasise the fundamental human rights of neurodivergent individuals, including the right to autonomy, self-determination, and inclusion in society. This perspective challenges practices that restrict these rights in the name of safety or treatment.
Needs-based approaches, on the other hand, emphasise the very real support needs that many neurodivergent individuals have, particularly those with high support needs. This perspective argues that focusing solely on rights without acknowledging needs can leave vulnerable individuals without the support they require to live safely and with dignity.
5.3 The Complexity of Quality of Life
Defining and measuring quality of life for neurodivergent individuals is another area of ongoing debate. Traditional measures of quality of life often emphasise independence, productivity, and social integration – values that may not align with the preferences and priorities of all neurodivergent individuals. Some neurodivergent individuals may prioritise different aspects of quality of life, such as sensory comfort, routine and predictability, or the ability to engage deeply with special interests.
5.4 Therapy and the Pursuit of Autonomy
The neurodiversity paradigm has fundamentally reshaped the conversation around therapy and support. It critically evaluates traditional approaches, such as certain forms of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), that have historically focused on “correcting” behaviours, such as stimming, to make a person appear more neurotypical. From this perspective, trying to eliminate a behaviour like hand-flapping, which may be an individual’s natural way of self-regulating or expressing themselves, is considered harmful because it forces conformity without addressing the underlying sensory or emotional need. Research has shown that forcing an individual to suppress or “mask” their autistic traits can have significant negative effects on mental health, leading to heightened anxiety and depression (Chapman, 2020).
In contrast, the neurodiversity paradigm advocates for a “neuro-affirmative” approach to therapy (Leadbitter et al., 2021). This approach is centred around the desires and well-being of the individual, not on assimilation into a neurotypical world. The goal of neuro-affirmative support is to help individuals “live a life they want on their own terms” (Leadbitter et al., 2021). This may involve addressing challenging behaviours, such as self-injurious actions, to improve safety and quality of life, but it does so while respecting the individual’s inherent identity and autonomy. A neuro-affirmative therapist might work with a person to find safe, alternative outlets for their need to stim, rather than trying to eliminate the behaviour itself. It is a model that prioritises the enhancement of communication skills and the cultivation of authentic self-expression, not the suppression of one’s core self (Fallon-Kund et al., 2017).
5.5 Evidence-Based Practice in a Neurodiversity Context
The integration of neurodiversity principles with evidence-based practice represents an ongoing challenge in the field. Evidence-based practice emphasises the use of interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective through rigorous research. However, much of the existing research on neurodivergent interventions was conducted from a medical model perspective, focusing on reducing or eliminating neurodivergent traits rather than supporting individuals to thrive as their authentic selves. This has led to calls for new research that evaluates interventions from a neurodiversity perspective, focusing on outcomes that matter to neurodivergent individuals themselves rather than just observable behavioural changes. (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2019; Leadbitter et al., 2021)
5.6 The Role of Families and Caregivers
The neurodiversity paradigm has also sparked important conversations about the role of families and caregivers in supporting neurodivergent individuals. Traditional approaches often positioned parents and caregivers as the primary decision-makers about interventions and supports, sometimes with limited input from the neurodivergent individual themselves. The neurodiversity movement has challenged this approach, advocating for greater involvement of neurodivergent individuals in decisions about their own lives, even when they have high support needs. This doesn’t mean that families and caregivers don’t have important roles to play, but rather that these roles should be collaborative and supportive rather than controlling. (Dieleman et al., 2019; Ryan & Runswick-Cole, 2008)
5.7 Cultural Considerations in Neurodiversity
The neurodiversity movement has primarily emerged from Western, individualistic cultures, and its principles may not translate directly to all cultural contexts. Different cultures have varying perspectives on disability, independence, family roles, and individual autonomy that may influence how neurodiversity principles are understood and applied. For example, cultures that emphasise collective rather than individual identity may have different perspectives on the importance of individual self-determination. This highlights the importance of cultural humility and responsiveness in implementing neurodiversity-informed approaches. (Magaña et al., 2012; Mandell, 2017)
5.8 The Importance of Self-Advocacy: A Call to Listen
At its heart, the neurodiversity paradigm is a movement born from the lived experiences of neurodivergent individuals and their self-advocacy. The initial ideas emerged from early internet forums where autistic people discussed their shared experiences of misunderstanding and stigma. This foundation means that the voices of the neurodivergent community are considered central to defining the paradigm’s principles and goals. For parents and professionals, this implies a critical shift in perspective: they must move away from the assumption that they are the “sole gatekeepers of knowledge” about neurodivergence (Leadbitter et al., 2021).
Embracing this perspective means listening to one’s own neurodivergent child and to the broader community of self-advocates, even when their opinions on therapy or support may differ from traditional professional advice. The autistic community, for example, offers an invaluable resource that neurotypical parents cannot: expert experience in navigating a world designed for others (Leadbitter et al., 2021)). By actively listening to and collaborating with neurodivergent people, society can foster a truly inclusive environment where support is aimed at helping individuals live authentically rather than assimilate, ensuring that every person is valued and respected for who they are (Pisciotta, 2024).
Conclusion
A formal neurodivergence diagnosis is far more than a simple label; it is a profound tool for understanding and a crucial catalyst for living an authentic, well-supported life. The analysis presented in this essay demonstrates that a diagnosis is essential for clarifying a person's life experiences, providing a narrative that replaces self-blame with self-acceptance. Its significance is particularly pronounced in early life, where diagnosis opens the door to timely supports that leverage a child's brain plasticity, leading to improved long-term outcomes in communication, social development, and academic success.
The journey toward diagnosis and beyond represents a complex interplay of individual, family, community, and societal factors. While the diagnostic process itself remains embedded within medical frameworks that can be pathologising, the neurodiversity paradigm offers a transformative lens through which to understand and apply diagnostic information. This paradigm shift from deficit to difference, from pathology to variation, creates space for neurodivergent individuals to be valued for who they are rather than criticised for who they are not.
The evidence presented throughout this essay demonstrates that diagnosis serves multiple crucial functions: it provides psychological relief and identity validation, unlocks access to essential supports and services, enables legal protections and workplace accommodations, and facilitates connection to community and peer support networks. These benefits extend far beyond the individual to impact families, educational institutions, workplaces, and broader communities, creating ripple effects that can transform lives across generations.
However, the path to diagnosis is not without challenges. Systemic barriers including gender bias, cultural bias, economic constraints, and limited access to qualified practitioners continue to prevent many individuals from receiving timely and accurate diagnoses. These barriers disproportionately affect women, individuals from minority backgrounds, and those from lower socioeconomic circumstances, perpetuating inequalities in access to support and services (Mandell et al., 2009).
Ultimately, a diagnosis is the practical key that unlocks the door to a world of support, from legal accommodations and financial benefits to a vibrant sense of community. While the act of diagnosis is an artefact of a medical framework, its value is derived from its capacity to empower individuals to live well in a world that is not yet fully inclusive. The ongoing paradigm shift from viewing neurodivergence as a deficit to valuing it as a natural human difference necessitates a corresponding shift in action. It is an imperative for individuals to seek the clarity and support a diagnosis can provide, and for society to continue its journey toward a more accommodating, accepting, and empathetic world where all brains, and all people, can thrive.
Linked Posts
The Visual Snapshot
References
Alvares, G. A., Bebbington, K., Cleary, D., Evans, K., Glasson, E. J., Maybery, M. T., Pillar, S., Uljarević, M., Varcin, K., Wray, J., & Whitehouse, A. J. (2020). The misnomer of “high functioning autism”: Intelligence is an imprecise predictor of functional abilities at diagnosis. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 24(1), 221–232.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5 (R)) (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
Angulo, S. (2023, November 13). Privacy and neurodiversity: Helping diverse minds navigate the digital age. IAPP.
Ashburner, J., Rodger, S., Ziviani, J., & Jones, J. (2014). Occupational therapy services for people with autism spectrum disorders: current state of play, use of evidence and future learning priorities. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61(2), 110–120.
Assistive Technology. (n.d.). ADCET. Retrieved December 20, 2025, from https://www.adcet.edu.au/students-with-disability/current-students/assistive-technology
Barbaro, J., Sadka, N., Gilbert, M., Beattie, E., Li, X., Ridgway, L., Lawson, L. P., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). Diagnostic accuracy of the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance-Revised with preschool tool for early autism detection in very young children. JAMA Network Open, 5(3), e2146415. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46415
Bargiela, S., Steward, R., & Mandy, W. (2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with autism spectrum conditions: An investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(10), 3281–3294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2872-8
Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Owen, S. V. (2021). To be gifted and learning disabled (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Bjelland, J. (2025, February 19). The Serious Health Risks of Unmanaged Sensory Overload in the Sensitive and Neurodivergent by Julie Bjelland, LMFT. Julie Bjelland. https://www.juliebjelland.com/hsp-blog/the-serious-health-risks-of-unmanaged-sensory-overload-in-the-sensitive-and-neurodivergent
Boshoff, K., Bowen-Salter, H., Gibbs, D., Phillips, R. L., Porter, L., & Wiles, L. (2021). A meta-synthesis of how parents of children with autism describe their experience of accessing and using routine healthcare services for their children. Health & Social Care in the Community, 29(6), 1668–1682.
Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 28(6), 1591–1594.
Botha, M., & Frost, D. M. (2020). Extending the minority stress model to understand mental health problems experienced by the autistic population. Society and Mental Health, 10(1), 20–34.
Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of autism acceptance and mental health in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(2), 473–484.
Chapman, R. (2020). The reality of autism: On the metaphysics of disorder and diversity. Philosophical Psychology, 33(6), 799–819.
Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360–1372.
Chaste, P., & Leboyer, M. (2012). Autism risk factors: genes, environment, and gene-environment interactions. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2012.14.3/pchaste
Cooper, K., Smith, L. G. E., & Russell, A. (2017). Social identity, self-esteem, and mental health in autism: Social identity, self-esteem, and mental health in autism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(7), 844–854.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 8. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter, J., Greenson, J., Donaldson, A., & Varley, J. (2010). Randomized, controlled trial of an intervention for toddlers with autism: the Early Start Denver Model. Pediatrics, 125(1), e17–e23. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0958
den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(2), 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318820762
DePape, A.-M., & Lindsay, S. (2015). Parents’ experiences of caring for a child with autism spectrum disorder. Qualitative Health Research, 25(4), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314552455
Dieleman, L. M., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Prinzie, P., Laporte, N., & De Pauw, S. S. W. (2019). Daily sources of autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting in mothers of children with ASD: The role of child behavior and mothers’ psychological needs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(2), 509–526.
Disability Discrimination Act, Cth (1992). https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/
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
EducationDaily. (2025, December 16). What the Latest Research Reveals About Supporting Neurodivergent Children in Australia. EducationDaily. https://educationdaily.au/discoveries/what-the-latest-research-reveals-about-supporting-neurodivergent-children-in-australia/
Fallon-Kund, M., Coenen, M., & Bickenbach, J. E. (2017). Balancing autonomy and protection: A qualitative analysis of court hearings dealing with protective measures. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 53, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.06.002
Faraone, S. V., & Larsson, H. (2019). Genetics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Molecular Psychiatry, 24(4), 562–575.
Fletcher-Watson, S., Adams, J., Brook, K., Charman, T., Crane, L., Cusack, J., Leekam, S., Milton, D., Parr, J. R., & Pellicano, E. (2019). Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(4), 943–953.
French, B., Daley, D., Groom, M., & Cassidy, S. (2023). Risks associated with undiagnosed ADHD and/or Autism: A mixed-method systematic review. Journal of Attention Disorders, 27(12), 1393–1410.
Ganz, J. B., Katsiyannis, A., & Morin, K. L. (2018). Facilitated communication: The resurgence of a disproven treatment for individuals with autism. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(1), 52–56.
Ghirardi, L., Brikell, I., Kuja-Halkola, R., Freitag, C. M., Franke, B., Asherson, P., Lichtenstein, P., & Larsson, H. (2018). The familial co-aggregation of ASD and ADHD: a register-based cohort study. Molecular Psychiatry, 23(2), 257–262.
Goldberg, H. (2023). Unraveling neurodiversity: Insights from neuroscientific perspectives. Encyclopedia, 3(3), 972–980.
Graby, S. (2017). Neurodiversity:: bridging the gap between the disabled people’s movement and the mental health system survivors’ movement? In Madness, distress and the politics of disablement (pp. 231–244). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t898sg.21
Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1), 5–25.
Hensch, T. K. (2005). Critical period plasticity in local cortical circuits. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 6(11), 877–888.
Hickey, A., Crabtree, J., & Stott, J. (2018). “Suddenly the first fifty years of my life made sense”: Experiences of older people with autism. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 22(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316680914
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.
Hume, K., Steinbrenner, J. R., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan, S., & Savage, M. N. (2021). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism: Third generation review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(11), 4013–4032.
Joosten, A. V., & Bundy, A. C. (2010). Sensory processing and stereotypical and repetitive behaviour in children with autism and intellectual disability: SENSORY PROCESSING IN AUTISM. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 57(6), 366–372.
Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028353
Knudsen, E. I. (2004). Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(8), 1412–1425. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042304796
Kuhl, P. K. (2011). Early language learning and literacy: Neuroscience implications for education. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society, 5(3), 128–142.
Leadbitter, K., Buckle, K. L., Ellis, C., & Dekker, M. (2021). Autistic Self-Advocacy and the Neurodiversity Movement: Implications for Autism Early Intervention Research and Practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 635690.
Leader, G., Abberton, C., Cunningham, S., Gilmartin, K., Grudzien, M., Higgins, E., Joshi, L., Whelan, S., & Mannion, A. (2022). Gastrointestinal symptoms in autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Nutrients, 14(7), 1471.
Leedham, A., Thompson, A. R., Smith, R., & Freeth, M. (2020). “I was exhausted trying to figure it out”: The experiences of females receiving an autism diagnosis in middle to late adulthood. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 24(1), 135–146.
Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., & Carafa, G. (2018). A systematic review of workplace disclosure and accommodation requests among youth and young adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(25), 2971–2986.
Loke, Y. J., Hannan, A. J., & Craig, J. M. (2015). The role of epigenetic change in autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Neurology, 6, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00107
Loomes, R., Hull, L., & Mandy, W. P. L. (2017). What is the male-to-female ratio in autism spectrum disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(6), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.03.013
Lorah, E. R., Parnell, A., Whitby, P. S., & Hantula, D. (2015). A systematic review of tablet computers and portable media players as speech generating devices for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3792–3804.
Lovett, B. J. (2010). Extended time testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Answers to five fundamental questions. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 611–638.
Magaña, S., Parish, S. L., Rose, R. A., Timberlake, M., & Swaine, J. G. (2012). Racial and ethnic disparities in quality of health care among children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50(4), 287–299.
Mandell, D. S. (2017). Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in the identification and treatment of autism spectrum disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 491–513.
Mandell, D. S., Wiggins, L. D., Carpenter, L. A., Daniels, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Durkin, M. S., Giarelli, E., Morrier, M. J., Nicholas, J. S., Pinto-Martin, J. A., Shattuck, P. T., Thomas, K. C., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., & Kirby, R. S. (2009). Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Identification of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 99(3), 493–498.
Mason, D., Ingham, B., Urbanowicz, A., Michael, C., Birtles, H., Woodbury-Smith, M., Brown, T., James, I., Scarlett, C., Nicolaidis, C., & Parr, J. R. (2019). A systematic review of what barriers and facilitators prevent and enable physical healthcare services access for autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(8), 3387–3400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04049-2
McEwen, B. S. (2005). Stressed or stressed out: what is the difference? Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 30(5), 315–318.
Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science (New York, N.Y.), 325(5938), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175626
Metzger, A. N., & Hamilton, L. T. (2021). The Stigma of ADHD: Teacher Ratings of Labeled Students. Sociological Perspectives.
Miller, D., & Rees, J. (2021). Masking is life”: experiences of masking in autistic women. Autism in Adulthood Knowledge Practice and Policy, 3(4), 330–338.
Mills, C., Tracey, D., & Sharp, N. (2025). “Good Luck out there without NDIS”: Challenges accessing individualized support packages by autistic young people leaving school. Health & Social Care in the Community, 2025(1), 6830644. https://doi.org/10.1155/hsc/6830644
Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887.
Modabbernia, A., Velthorst, E., & Reichenberg, A. (2017). Environmental risk factors for autism: an evidence-based review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Molecular Autism, 8(1), 13.
Morrison, C., Cashin, A., & Foley, K.-R. (2025). Daily living skill support for autistic people through a neurodiversity-affirming practice lens. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 72(2), e13002.
Nevala, N., Pehkonen, I., Virtanen, M., Mattila-Holappa, P., & Juvonen-Posti, P. (2025). Developing a work accommodation operating model for workplaces and work ability support services. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 116–124.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1
Pearson, A., & Rose, K. (2021). A conceptual analysis of autistic masking: Understanding the narrative of stigma and the illusion of choice. Autism in Adulthood Knowledge Practice and Policy, 3(1), 52–60.
Pellicano, E., & Den Houting, J. (2022). Shifting from “normal science” to neurodiversity in autism science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 63(4), 381–396.
Pelton, M. K., & Cassidy, S. A. (2017). Are autistic traits associated with suicidality? A test of the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicide in a non-clinical young adult sample. Autism Research: Official Journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 10(11), 1891–1904.
People with Disability Australia. (2022, May 25). Disability Discrimination Act 1992. People with Disability Australia -; People With Disability. https://pwd.org.au/about-us/about-disability/key-disability-legislation/
Pisciotta, A. (2024). Shifting paradigms: Rethinking autism beyond the medical model. Voices in Bioethics, 10.
Poed, S., Cologon, K., & Jackson, R. (2022). Gatekeeping and restrictive practices by Australian mainstream schools: results of a national survey. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(8), 766–779.
Quadt, L., Csecs, J., Bond, R., Harrison, N. A., Critchley, H. D., Davies, K. A., & Eccles, J. (2024). Childhood neurodivergent traits, inflammation and chronic disabling fatigue in adolescence: a longitudinal case-control study. BMJ Open, 14(7), e084203.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170.
Rowe, C., Candler, C., & Neville, M. (2011). Noise reduction headphones and autism: A single case study. Journal of Occupational Therapy Schools & Early Intervention, 4(3-4), 229–235.
Rumball, F., Happé, F., & Grey, N. (2020). Experience of trauma and PTSD symptoms in autistic adults: Risk of PTSD development following DSM-5 and non-DSM-5 traumatic life events. Autism Research: Official Journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 13(12), 2122–2132.
Ryan, S., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Repositioning mothers: mothers, disabled children and disability studies. Disability & Society, 23(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590801953937
Saggers, B., Carrington, S., & Harper-Hill, K. (2016). The Australian cooperative research centre for living with autism (autism CRC): Supporting improved educational outcomes for students on the autism spectrum. CAISE Review, 4.
Samecki, A. (2022, March 15). Australia develops “world”s most effective’ autism screening tool. NewsGP.
Sandbank, M., Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley LaPoint, S., Feldman, J. I., Barrett, D. J., Caldwell, N., Dunham, K., Crank, J., Albarran, S., & Woynaroski, T. (2023). Autism intervention meta-analysis of early childhood studies (Project AIM): updated systematic review and secondary analysis. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 383, e076733.
Sandham, V., Hill, A. E., & Hinchliffe, F. (2022). The perspectives of Australian speech pathologists in providing evidence-based practices to children with autism. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 57(6), 1229–1243.
Sandin, S., Lichtenstein, P., Kuja-Halkola, R., Hultman, C., Larsson, H., & Reichenberg, A. (2017). The heritability of autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 318(12), 1182–1184.
Singer, J. (1998). Odd people in: The birth of community amongst people on the autistic spectrum: A personal exploration of a new social movement based on neurological diversity [Sydney: Faculty of Humanities and Social Science University of Technology, Sydney.].
Stergiakouli, E., Davey Smith, G., Martin, J., Skuse, D. H., Viechtbauer, W., Ring, S. M., Ronald, A., Evans, D. E., Fisher, S. E., Thapar, A., & St Pourcain, B. (2017). Shared genetic influences between dimensional ASD and ADHD symptoms during child and adolescent development. Molecular Autism, 8(1), 18.
Strang, J. F., Kenworthy, L., Dominska, A., Sokoloff, J., Kenealy, L. E., Berl, M., Walsh, K., Menvielle, E., Slesaransky-Poe, G., Kim, K.-E., Luong-Tran, C., Meagher, H., & Wallace, G. L. (2014). Increased gender variance in autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(8), 1525–1533.
Szechy, K. A., Turk, P. D., & O’Donnell, L. A. (2024). Autism and employment challenges: The Double Empathy Problem and perceptions of an autistic employee in the workplace. Autism in Adulthood Knowledge Practice and Policy, 6(2), 205–217.
Technology for autistic adults. (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2025, from
Tuckman, A. (2019). ADHD after dark. Routledge.
Verkooijen, M. H., Ketelaar, M., van Woerden, M., Staal, W. G., Tendolkar, I., & Zinkstok, J. R. (2025). Impact of peer-support programs for individuals with autism: A systematic review. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251374971
Vivanti, G., Paynter, J., Duncan, E., Fothergill, H., Dissanayake, C., Rogers, S. J., & Victorian ASELCC Team. (2014). Effectiveness and feasibility of the early start denver model implemented in a group-based community childcare setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(12), 3140–3153.
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities.
Whitehouse, A., Varcin, K., Waddington, H., Sulek, R., Bent, C., Ashburner, J., Eapen, V., Goodall, E., Hudry, K., Roberts, J., Silvoe, N., & Trembath, D. (2021). Interventions for children on the autism spectrum: A synthesis of research evidence. La Trobe. https://doi.org/10.26181/6062B30ADFBD9
Young, S., Bramham, J., Gray, K., & Rose, E. (2008). The experience of receiving a diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adulthood: a qualitative study of clinically referred patients using interpretative phenomenological analysis: A qualitative study of clinically referred patients using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Journal of Attention Disorders, 11(4), 493–503.
Comments