Following on from the post on the inner voice, see here:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21119.msg879024#msg879024Where some part of the question of identifying people with labels was raised, in that case 'neurodiverse'. It also linked to the idea of perceptions of people being radically different even when we are considering people who we would see as 'normal'. Both questions are relevant to a long post on the subject of perception that I did some time ago, see here:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13903.msg673953#msg673953And a definition of 'neurodiverse' that highlights some issues I will raise:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeurodiversityI want to do a similar longer post about the idea of identity nowadays which covers aspects of the 'neurodiverse' issue, some of the additions to LGB such as Trans, in part related to 'culture wars', in part a general musing. Given this is not likely to be brief I will probably break it up into more than one post.
As covered in the inner voice thread, I think the idea that there is something that can be defined as neurotypical is flawed. I think it arises from a political rather than a scientific idea of banding some related, and non related differences in brain function together for a well meaning but illogical, and pseudo scientific approach. This can be seen by the problems defining 'neurodiverse' in its aim, again well meaning, to look at whether medicalising conditions is problematic. This leads to the idea that these conditions are not to be seen as problens even if those who have them might disagree. In the attempt to avoid medicalising, it moves to a self labelling rather than a diagnosing of any condition which then becomes a further definitional problem.
There are elements of this idea in the addition of various additions to the LGB movement which remove it from any question of sexuality, and the attempts to ensure the political rights of this of LGB sexualities into a more generalised and incredibly badly defined idea of non typical respinses to sex, and gender stereotypical roles. So badly defined that in order to argue against traditional gender roles it reifies them into something true - 'in order to destroy the village, we saved it'.
Both ideas revolve around the idea of the individual being able to identify as something, being true to themselves, and the movement as a whole labelling those who do not belong - neurotypical/cis. That this approach is contradictory is obvious.
There is further contradiction with the generalised linking, particularly in the US, with the Black Lives Matter movement which is strongly against self labelling, see Rachel Dolezal, but thrn seeks to look on those who have white 'privilege' as 'guilty'.
Again much of this is well meaning, and is based around attempts to remove stigmas, but in trying to fight against shaming, it has as so often created a sense of othering which not surprisingly leads to problems. The death and rape threats to and portrayal of women standing up for sex based spaces as fascists, and what seems to me the cowardly acceptance of that by many on the 'left' (see Starmer's lack of support for Rosie Duffield), are indicative of that.
As a more generalised musing, it also feels as if some of this works on an old prejudice which 'intersectionality' has not stipped away, that of class. There are undertones in Brexit debates, in the discussions of immigration, in the US Presidential race of a dismissal of peopke's views if they are not of the right 'class'. Now this is used by unscrupulous members of the right wing in such matters but it is a weapon handed to them by those on the left who dismiss people on the basis of class.
Anyway for a first tranche, that's enough to be getting on with.
