Word Up.

I've posted (OK taken the piss) before about the whole Billy Bollocks buzzword soup that is neurodivergent and neurodiversity and the like and how (almost) no-one actually understands what it actually means and why just using actual words rather than new fangled descriptors can be not only confusing but actually a wee bit embarrassing at times.

For example, in our house 4 out of 5 of us are Autistic, so the 'neurotypical' member of the family is actually the 'neurodivergent' one.

See how asking 'How many Autistics are in the house?' is so much easier?

And then you get (well meaning yet ultimately foolish) folk who use the word 'neurodiverse' when talking about Autistic people (and others) without realising that 'neurodiverse' actually just means everybody.

Your organisation is neurodiverse friendly?

Brilliant, that just means that people can use it.

Which is a pretty low bar if I'm honest.

That'd be where the word neurodivergent would come in (if you must).

Luckily it's usually everyday folk in the street that make that mistake, I mean you'd never get an expert doing it....

Take a bow Prof Ginny Russell, from the University of Exeter in todays Guardian article where a group of Autism experts try to gatekeep who's actually Autistic in order to stop us actually talking about our lives and pulling them up when they're wrong.

Comment of the day tho' must go to William Mandy, a professor of neurodevelopmental conditions at University College London, who reckons we should have a numerical cut-off point and should just say 2% of the population is autistic.

Brilliant.