This is my personal opinion. For the full manifesto click on the link above. Comments and disagreements are welcome. Shrill hysterical outbursts are not.


  • Run primarily by neurodivergent people for neurodivergent people.

This still doesn’t address the issue of severely disabled autistic people taking part in the intercourse. The sensible thing to do, of course, would be to include their parents as a proxy for the severely disabled autistic person, but it is my understanding this alternative is not very popular with neurodiversity 1.0 supporters. You might have already considered that, but it’s not clear from your manifesto. I would be interested to hear more about it.

Workplace inclusion

  • Focused on mainstreaming inclusive practices into the general workforce.

Wholeheartedly support the above point. This is an absolutely overdue necessity.

Who is neurodivergent?

  • Inclusive of a broader subset of the neurodivergent population, and not just autistic people.

I am curious as to who exactly do you mean as non-autistic neurodivergents? If there is anything that I don’t like about neurodiversity 1.0, it is their proclamation of conditions that are clearly established as mental illness as variants of neurodiversity. I’m talking about conditions such as bipolar disorder one or schizophrenia. My argument with this position is twofold: 1. I don’t understand why we would stop at bipolar disorder & schizophrenia? Let us include depression as well, and anxiety! These, too, can be argued to be conditions emblematic of neurodiversity. How was the bipolar and schizophrenia chosen to be included into neurodiversity movement? The only thing I can come up with is – and I’m not joking here – being weird. No, seriously: depressed people are simply sad, the anxious people are simply anxious. But people with bipolar 1 disorder or schizophrenia… ohhh, they can be weird, alright! They can be just as weird as autistic people! So they must be included into neurodiversity right?

Inclusive positons.

  • Inclusive of all of the same roles available to the general population.

Agree.I would say something along the lines of positive discrimination – that is a legal term (at least in the UK) which means that if there are two equally qualified candidates for the job you positively discriminate for the person with disability (or with a protected characteristics as they say), and you appoint that person instead of the mainstream candidate. I think codifying something like this would be useful.

Career starts in preschool. Possibly earlier.

  • Deliberately thoughtful toward developing long-term career plans.

I admit i cannot understand the context of this statement. I mean, I understand you are talking about careers for NATs, not just A JOB where Autistic person will most likely be underemployed, but someone in management will get a pat on the head for “increasing the diversity” of the organisation and “increasing employment among autistic people”.

The problem I foresee: you are already 20 years too late for THE ADULT AUTISTIC OF THE FUTURE. Because by the time they reach the employment world, you have already missed the most critical periods for brain development. They already grew up into adults shaped by merciless bullying on the playground. They already formed a certain view of the world, and of themselves in this world. They already failed to learn the skills critical for successful career: persistence, belief in yourself, finishing your work, meeting deadlines. Not because they are stupid, but because they were assumed to be slow, so the expectations were set very low.

Call it Pygmalion effect, self-fulfilling prophecy or whatever: we live up and down to the expectations of the authority figures. This is real.

Compensation parity with mainstream peers in similar roles is a key performance indicator (KPI).
A bit too ambitious for a SINGLE KPI. Not possible to achieve quickly, and will lead to quick disappointment. Better to set a number of intermediate objectives: baby steps, you know…