The Language of Neurodivergence: Why Words Shape Perception

Language is a powerful tool that shapes how we perceive the world—and each other. When discussing autism, ADHD, or other forms of neurodivergence, phrases like “suffers from” frame these experiences as inherently tragic. This article explores why such language matters, how deficit-based narratives harm individuals, and how shifting our vocabulary can foster inclusivity, respect, and a more accurate understanding of neurodiversity.

The Power of Framing: Language as a Mirror of Society

Words are not neutral. They reflect cultural attitudes, reinforce stereotypes, and influence how marginalised groups are treated. Describing someone as “suffering from” autism or ADHD implies that neurodivergence is a burden to endure, rather than a natural variation of human neurology. This framing stems from the medical model of disability, which pathologises differences instead of addressing societal barriers. By contrast, neurodiversity-affirming language recognises that challenges often arise from a lack of accommodation, not the individual’s identity.

The Harm of Deficit-Based Narratives

Labelling neurodivergent people as “sufferers” perpetuates stigma and erases their agency. It suggests their existence is defined by hardship, overlooking strengths like creativity, pattern recognition, or hyperfocus. For autistic individuals, phrases like “affected by autism” can feel dehumanising, as if their identity is inseparable from a checklist of deficits. Similarly, describing ADHD as a “disorder” ignores how traits like spontaneity or divergent thinking contribute to innovation. When language focuses solely on struggles, it reinforces harmful stereotypes and discourages self-acceptance.

Person-First vs Identity-First Language: A Nuanced Debate

One common dilemma is whether to use person-first (“person with autism”) or identity-first (“autistic person”) language. While person-first phrasing aims to separate the individual from their diagnosis, many in the neurodivergent community reject it as unnecessary. Identity-first language, they argue, acknowledges that neurodivergence is intrinsic to their lived experience—not an accessory. However, preferences vary. The key is to listen to how individuals self-identify rather than imposing terminology. Defaulting to “suffers from” ignores this nuance entirely, prioritising clinical jargon over personal truth.

Media, Institutions, and the Responsibility to Lead

Media outlets, healthcare providers, and educational institutions play a pivotal role in shaping public discourse. Headlines like “Family’s Battle with Autism” or “ADHD Epidemic” sensationalise neurodivergence, framing it as a crisis. Similarly, diagnostic criteria focused on “impairments” or “deficits” overlook the systemic factors—like rigid workplaces or sensory-hostile environments—that create disability. Organisations must adopt guidelines that prioritise neutral or affirming language. For example, the National Autistic Society (UK) encourages terms like “autistic person” and avoids catastrophising metaphors like “burden”.

Moving Toward Affirming Language: Practical Steps

Shifting language requires intentionality. Here are actionable strategies:

• Replace judgmental terms: Use “neurodivergent” instead of “disordered,” and “experiences ADHD” instead of “suffers from ADHD.”
• Avoid assumptions: Ask individuals how they prefer to describe their experiences.
• Highlight strengths: Balance discussions of challenges with recognition of unique abilities.
• Critique systems, not people: Shift focus from “fixing” individuals to improving accessibility.

For instance, instead of saying, “He struggles with social skills due to autism,” try, “He communicates in ways that differ from neurotypical norms.”

Conclusion: Words as Bridges, Not Barriers

Language evolves as our understanding of humanity deepens. Describing neurodivergence through a lens of suffering not only misrepresents reality but also alienates those it claims to describe. By choosing words that honour autonomy, diversity, and complexity, we create space for acceptance—both in society and within oneself. The goal is not political correctness but empathy: recognising that every person’s story deserves to be told on their own terms. Let’s build a lexicon that reflects that truth.