Hi again!

I'm asking that "neurodiversity/neurodivergence" be added to the anti-discrimination section of the CoC. Many in the neurodivergent community, including myself, do not see our personalities/behaviours as disabilities, but differences. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many differences are pathologized due to divergence from the culturally dominant form of individual expression.

There are even satirical pieces out there that imagine a world where neurodivergence is the norm and neurotypical people are pathologized, depicting neurotypical minds as they would be described in the DSM 5. Pretty enlightening read. DM me if you want links to these works.

As with the trans/non-binary posting, I welcome any questions.

Thanks!

- Katrina

I understand the motivation, but I don't know where you stop once you start down the road to defining the groups, definitions and protected classes to be accounted for in a code of conduct, particularly when the people concerned may not demonstrate any of the characteristics of the class to which they belong when they contribute to the forum here.

In a practical sense, would it mean that I have to make it clear to everyone that I am in a protected class, so that I can then protest if I am not treated equitably, and if so, what does that do to my right of privacy? And if I don't broadcast my status regularly for others to be aware of it, it is then OK for me to be treated differently/more harshly than someone who does?

What I mean is that in my view, where I am in 'transness' (from your other suggestion) or the spectrum is not what should determine anyone else's conduct. What should do that is their respect for any and every other human, and my belief is that the code of conduct should (and I think largely does) reflect that expectation as it is. I'm not sure that proscribing groups and classes beyond that would really help ensure best behaviors.

As with the member who responded (so far) in your other thread, the code really should be as simple and coherent as possible, in order that it can be readily understood and honored. If it seeks to define exactly to whom it applies and why, then it will be necessary for every member who participates here to declare any and all of their preferences/choices/personal needs/mental capacities/medical conditions/sexuality/disabilities/physical limitations and who knows what else in every post in order that transgressions of the code of conduct might then be clear to all.

Inclusivity is not about this, it's about ensuring that ALL members treat each other exactly as the forum conduct post so excellently states: the Bill & Ted motto, "Be excellent to each other!" Honestly, I don't think it has shown any need for a more proscriptive approach so far.

And, just to be clear, I am autistic. The above isn't an anti politically correct or anti diversity viewpoint, but comes from the experience of participating in and managing internet resources just like this one since they began, not to mention news and listserv groups before that.

>> badferday said:

There are even satirical pieces out there that imagine a world where neurodivergence is the norm and neurotypical people are pathologized, depicting neurotypical minds as they would be described in the DSM 5. Pretty enlightening read. DM me if you want links to these works. Click to expand...

I want to respond to this separately, because I find this puzzling in the context of a discussion about inclusivity. That it isn't acceptable to 'pathologize' neurodiverse people this way is clear, but it can't be considered acceptable to do so with neurotypical people either. Eulogizing work that does so via an alternate universe DSM 5 (for the rest of the world, that's the current version of the US diagnostic manual for mental health disorders) is... well, just disturbing.

I say this with the utmost humility.

The focus here should be on self control, self reflection, and intelligence of self. I am also part of the neurodivergent crowd as you state that you are *fist bump* . It is my belief that we as neurodivergent people (ie: the minority) understanding our own differences learn to appropriately function within the norms of the greater society. What we do not do is ask literally everyone else to categorize and adjust their behaviors for us. That is wholly unrealistic and unfair.

We police ourselves. We have complete control of how we function
in Society. What we do not do is attempt to police everyone else to suit our needs be it emotional, cognitive etc.

If abuses are made, I for one have absolute confidence in our boards to support those being wronged and take appropriate action if warranted.

*edited for spelling

>> Yoda said:

I understand the motivation, but I don't know where you stop once you start down the road to defining the groups, definitions and protected classes to be accounted for in a code of conduct, particularly when the people concerned may not demonstrate any of the characteristics of the class to which they belong when they contribute to the forum here. In a practical sense, would it mean that I have to make it clear to everyone that I am in a protected class, so that I can then protest if I am not treated equitably, and if so, what does that do to my right of privacy? And if I don't broadcast my status regularly for others to be aware of it, it is then OK for me to be treated differently/more harshly than someone who does? What I mean is that in my view, where I am in 'transness' (from your other suggestion) or the spectrum is not what should determine anyone else's conduct. What should do that is their respect for any and every other human, and my belief is that the code of conduct should (and I think largely does) reflect that expectation as it is. I'm not sure that proscribing groups and classes beyond that would really help ensure best behaviors. As with the member who responded (so far) in your other thread, the code really should be as simple and coherent as possible, in order that it can be readily understood and honored. If it seeks to define exactly to whom it applies and why, then it will be necessary for every member who participates here to declare any and all of their preferences/choices/personal needs/mental capacities/medical conditions/sexuality/disabilities/physical limitations and who knows what else in every post in order that transgressions of the code of conduct might then be clear to all. Inclusivity is not about this, it's about ensuring that ALL members treat each other exactly as the forum conduct post so excellently states: the Bill & Ted motto, "Be excellent to each other!" Honestly, I don't think it has shown any need for a more proscriptive approach so far. And, just to be clear, I am autistic. The above isn't an anti politically correct or anti diversity viewpoint, but comes from the experience of participating in and managing internet resources just like this one since they began, not to mention news and listserv groups before that. Click to expand...

You don't have to disclose group membership to anyone. That is a personal choice. But if we are going to list protected classes in a CoC, then we need to keep it up to date.

As to your slippery slope argument - it's not as if new protected classes emerge every day. It takes decades sometimes for a protected class to gain sufficient visibility, to where affirming existence becomes a necessity.

>> Yoda said:

I want to respond to this separately, because I find this puzzling in the context of a discussion about inclusivity. That it isn't acceptable to 'pathologize' neurodiverse people this way is clear, but it can't be considered acceptable to do so with neurotypical people either. Eulogizing work that does so via an alternate universe DSM 5 (for the rest of the world, that's the current version of the US diagnostic manual for mental health disorders) is... well, just disturbing. Click to expand...

That's why I mentioned it's satire. It's a form of illustrating what many in our community feel like because we're often pathologized relative to this neurotypical society. Identity matters, whether we like it or not. This is also why I didn't post a link, but rather invited people to DM me if they wanted to see the work.

While I do appreciate the reasons for your proposals, I wasn't so much interested in a debate with you on them, just on providing my feedback to the board and admins as to why I believe your proposals for inclusivity are less appropriate to the site here than they might potentially be in other places.

And the reason for highlighting your use of 'satire' regarding neurotypical people was simply to demonstrate how easy it is to overstep the line even when that line is as clearly defined as to be found in DSM 5.

To be clear, I greatly appreciate your thoughts, and the fact I don't agree with how you see inclusivity being best supported here doesn't change that. But just as you clearly stand by the reasoning for your proposals, so I stand by the reasons I would urge the board not to go down that particular road. (Note: not 'slippery slope').

As with the other thread that has been raised, this issue will be discussed in the upcoming board meeting - any amendments will be announced after this.