Neurodiverse or neurodivergent: what’s the difference? A guide to key terms 

Neurodiverse or neurodivergent: what’s the difference? A guide to key terms 

Why does language matter?

Language is constantly evolving, which can make it tricky to know how to refer to different disabilities and conditions in ways that are respectful and empowering: terms that were acceptable or even the norm in the past can be seen as offensive now. We know that the terminology someone uses to refer to themselves or their disability is deeply personal, and as such it is important to try to use terms that individuals feel comfortable with. 

This page explores the language and terminology used around neurodiversity and neurodivergence. It explains Business Disability Forum’s approach to these terms and provides guidance for organisations developing their own language and communications policies. After reading it, you will be better equipped to understand whether to use neurodiverse or neurodivergent in different situations. Read our page ‘Inclusive langauge: what is it and why is it important?’ for more information about general disability-inclusive language. 

The key takeaway from this guidance is that language around neurodiversity is evolving and sometimes contested. Where possible, the best approach is always to be guided by the preferences of the individual or groups you are speaking with. 

The background of neurodiversity terminology

Neurodiversity is a relatively new word – it was coined in 1998. Cultural and personal understandings of neurodiversity and neurodivergent conditions have changed significantly since then, and in many cases, they continue to do so. As neurodiversity has become more understood and diagnoses of neurodivergent conditions have become more common, the terminology used in this area has changed rapidly. 

Neurodivergence is often a deeply personal subject that goes to the heart of people’s identities. For example, some autistic people feel that their autism is such an integral part of their identity that it would be inaccurate to say they are a ‘person with autism’ because the person and the autism are inextricable. On the other hand, another person may see themselves as having an identity that isn’t defined by their neurodivergence. All this means that people talk about neurodiversity differently and may feel strongly about the terminology they use. 

Unfortunately, there is no common consensus on the single right term to use. Each individual will have their own preferred terminology for their own personal reasons. As such, it can make navigating this space confusing. 

There are two main areas of debate: person-first vs identity-first language, and ‘neurodiverse or neurodivergent’ (i.e. the grammar debate). We delve into each of these in the following sections. 

What is person-first and identity-first language? 

There are different ways of talking about disability in English, and the main two are ‘person-first’ and ‘identity-first.’ Person-first language places the importance on the person, with the disability or condition added on afterwards, to preserve the sense of self and highlight that the individual is not defined by their disability. Identity-first language does the opposite – placing the disability as central to the identity of the individual. Preferences vary between individuals, communities and countries. 

The following table outlines some examples of neurodivergent conditions in person-first and identity-first language. 

*Note that not all conditions have commonly used identify-first and person-first alternatives. In some cases, such as ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome, one form is much more widely used than the other. The examples above are intended to illustrate the principle rather than prescribe particular terminology. 

Neurodiverse or neurodivergent: the grammar debate 

When the term ‘neurodiversity’ was first coined, it was understood that it referred to people with neurodivergent conditions, and these people would be referred to as ‘neurodiverse’. 

However, in recent years we have seen a growing debate about the grammatical correctness of these definitions: that you should not apply the term ‘neurodiverse’ to an individual, as it is not possible to have diversity with only one person. Only a multiplicity – a group including people who think differently – can be considered neurodiverse. For example, a team that includes people with a range of different thinking styles and cognitive profiles could be described as neurodiverse. 

With this argument, neurodiverse or neurodivergent are clearly differentiated terms, with neurodiverse describing the variation between a group of people, and neurodivergent describing an individual with a neurodivergent condition. 

The language we use at Business Disability Forum 

Based on our experience working with employers across the globe, we consciously use a mixture of person-first and identity-first language throughout our guidance. This is to recognise the fact that different people have different preferences, and these can vary significantly between different countries and cultures. Therefore, you will see a mixture of terminology when we speak about any particular condition. 

When speaking about neurodiversity specifically, we follow the approach outlined earlier on this page that distinguishes between neurodiversity as a collective concept and neurodivergence as an individual characteristic. Below we have listed some definitions for common terms to define how we use them throughout our website, events and wider communications: 

• Neurodiversity – The natural variation in how people’s brains work, process information and experience the world. 

• Neurodiverse – Used to describe a group of people who have different ways of thinking, learning or processing information. 

• Neurodivergent – A person whose cognitive function differs from what is considered typical.  

• Neurodivergence – The state or experience of being neurodivergent. 

• Neurodivergent condition – A condition commonly associated with neurodivergence, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and Tourette’s syndrome. 

• Not neurodivergent – A person who does not identify as neurodivergent or does not have a neurodivergent condition. This is our preferred term as it describes the absence of neurodivergence without implying one way of thinking is the standard against which others should be compared. 

• Neuroinclusion – The practice of creating environments, systems and cultures in which neurodivergent people can participate and succeed without unnecessary barriers. 

The following list of terms are widely used and recognised, but are not generally part of Business Disability Forum’s preferred house styles for the reasons outlined below: 

• Neurominority – We generally avoid this term because some people feel it can be othering or place too much emphasis on difference. 

• Neuroatypical – We generally avoid using this term because it is built around the concept of being ‘atypical’ or outside the norm. Some people feel it frames neurodivergence in relation to what is considered typical, rather than recognising different ways of thinking as equally valid.  

• Neuromajority – We generally avoid this term because some people feel it reinforces ideas of normality and difference by defining people in relation to whether they belong to a perceived majority or minority group.  

• Neurotypical – While this is a widely used and recognised term, we prefer to say ‘not neurodivergent’ because it is more descriptive and avoids creating an unnecessary distinction between groups. 

• ND – We avoid abbreviating neurodivergent or neurodivergence to ‘ND’ as abbreviations can create barriers for readers who are unfamiliar with the terminology.  

It is important to emphasise that we do not presume to set the standard on this subject. Everyone has a right to define how they would like to be referred to, and many people will use different language to us. We have to choose terms to create a consistent organisational voice, but we do not speak for all neurodivergent people and would not expect others to adopt our approach. Terms such as ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘neurodiverse’ continue to be widely used in different ways, and those uses are valid and widely understood. 

What about Asperger’s syndrome? 

Asperger’s syndrome was previously used as a diagnosis for some autistic people. However, diagnostic manuals have changed over time and it is no longer used as a formal diagnosis in many countries, including the UK. Instead, people are generally diagnosed as having autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). 

Some people who were diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome continue to identify with the term and may continue to describe themselves in this way. As with other aspects of neurodiversity language, it is best to be guided by the individual’s preferences when referring to their identity or diagnosis. 

How should I talk about neurodiversity?

There are no fixed rules about what language to use with individuals, as everyone is different. The important principle you should remember is to be led by the individual and not to use language that someone has told you they are uncomfortable with. 

We generally recommend that you simply ask someone what language they would prefer you to use. Provided you ask respectfully, it is better to ask than to be unsure. Not speaking about neurodiversity due to fear of ‘getting it wrong’ is often more damaging than making an honest mistake with good intentions. 

Remember that, in the workplace, it is often more helpful to focus on barriers and support needs than on a diagnostic label. It is likely that there is no need to talk about specific conditions at all, as focusing on conditions can lead to stereotyping and get in the way of seeing an individual with unique abilities, challenges and circumstances. Read more on our page ‘Having sensitive conversations with neurodiverse employees’. 

Setting a corporate approach 

It is important to set a clear corporate approach on the use of language to be clear about when people should use neurodiversity, neurodiverse or neurodivergent. We recommend that all organisations have an inclusive communications policy, which should include inclusive language guidance. This creates clarity on what is considered appropriate and ensures you have a consistent organisational voice. See our page on ‘How to develop an inclusive communications policy’ for more information. 

In your guidelines, you will probably have to adopt one way of talking about neurodiversity and neurodivergence in your organisation. It is helpful to include an explanation of why you have chosen a particular approach and how you reached this decision. Always consult with neurodivergent people when choosing your approach to language, for example through a staff network group, employee resource group, staff forum or other relevant stakeholders. This will help ensure your chosen approach reflects the views and experiences of the people most affected by it.  

It is important to schedule periodic reviews of your guidelines, particularly in the field of neurodiversity where language is constantly evolving. Regular reviews will help to keep your organisation current and allow employees to feel confident about their use of language. 

There is unlikely to ever be a single set of terms that everyone agrees on. Rather than focusing on finding the ‘perfect’ terminology, organisations should aim to be respectful, listen to feedback, and be willing to adapt their language over time. A thoughtful and flexible approach is usually more important than the specific words used.