Very mixed feelings on this book. Its explanation of the neurodiversity paradigm, the double empathy problem, and the like are extremely valuable and necessary. However, in furthering the social model of disability, the author does something that many advocates do which I’ve never felt is the right approach, which is to imply ALL struggles that autistic people face are down to social stigma and lack of accommodations.

That may be true for some, but this kind of advocacy always dismisses the autistic people with very high support needs who are genuinely limited in ways that can’t be fixed with accommodations. People who struggle to perform essential tasks like eating and drinking, and will need lifelong assistance. That is a disability that isn’t just down to social stigma, it will always be a struggle, though it can absolutely be accommodated better with access to resources. 

Even in the author’s example of the social model of disability we can see the issue, and the shying away from admitting any inherent disability, which shouldn’t be something shameful at all. She talks about how a wheelchair user will be far less limited in a society that is designed to be wheelchair accessible. Absolutely true. But this doesn’t erase that there are still things a wheelchair user will always be limited in.

Some parts of the social model are illustrated well, such a dyslexia not being the detriment it is in a pre-literate society. Certain limitations only become apparent and therefore are noted as disabilities when a society requires them to be done. This can also work in reverse, such as glasses becoming so common place that poor vision is rarely acknowledged as being a disability at all.

But feels that in insisting on EVERYTHING being down to social stigma, the rhetoric ends up being to the detriment of disability acceptance. Disability can be inherently limiting, and that is okay. 

All of these experiences are very nuanced and context-dependent, and differ from individual to individual. Which is my fundamental issue with some of this book. The author is very passionate, and (rightfully) angry at an ableist world. But in some of that anger, she asserts little possibility for nuance. She continually reiterates how everyone who doesn’t adhere to her defined paradigm is an “autisticphobic bigot.” 

In some points, it’s true, but when she insists on exact adherence to language and beliefs in all manners, and any differing opinion is chalked up to ableist indoctrination, it leads no room for important discussions. Which is terrible for something as vast and complicated as disability and how people experience it.

A lot of this book has great value, and the author’s work on the neurodiversity paradigm and the concept of neuroqueer are certainly important. I just wish she didn’t get so aggressively rigid and dismissive of any other experience besides what is the experience of lower support needs autistic people, and allowed for the nuance and acceptance of context and opinion she readily grants in her discussions of being neuroqueer, and accomodations people may need. 

These discussions and explanations around adapting society around the individual needs of neurodivergent people instead of forcing them to adapt to neurotypical standards is where the book excels. It even includes the acknowledgement of how sometimes accomodations contradict, and people have to find ways to work around it, something I notice a lot of activists fail to acknowledge, as even people with the same neurotype can have vastly different needs.