No need to say anything

 When someone discloses their neurodivergence, it is really, really not necessary for you to tell them whether or not you "could tell." Really.

I've gotten both responses ("Oh, I could tell" and "Wow, I could never tell!") and am equally annoyed by both.

Gatekeepers and "fakers"

 Friendly reminder:

If you're having a hard time accessing something you need, because you have to prove to someone that you "really" need it, that is NOT the fault of "fakers" or "casual users."

It's the fault of gatekeepers.

The solution is not to "better weed out fakers" or judge "casual users." It's for individuals to be allowed the autonomy to determine their own needs and choices.

Place the blame appropriately.

Not all trauma is equal

 "Anything can be traumatic, so you can't judge what's traumatic to someone else" and "It's wrong to say that someone's trauma is 'not so bad' compared to someone else's" are well-meaning concepts that, increasingly, I'm seeing used in harmful ways that, intentionally or not, have the effect of amplifying the emphasis on milder traumas of more privileged people, and minimizing emphasis on objectively more severe traumas of more marginalized people.

We're not supposed to say that some traumatic experiences are not that bad, but the reality is that some traumatic experiences are actually, objectively not as bad as others. In fact, sometimes, when a negative experience is perceived as "traumatic" by a privileged person, the problem is not that the experience was actually traumatic; the problem is that the privileged person felt an undeserved sense of entitlement to never have their privilege challenged or be expected to respect the rights of others. "All traumas are equally valid" is becoming the "All lives matter" of psychiatrically disabled people.

I've repeatedly had exchanges like this with people who identify as members of supporters of the mad/ neurodiversity/ psych disabled communities --

"Abusive behavior is caused by trauma."

"But here is an example of person with a privileged life, loving family, supportive friends, everything he could ever want, who is nevertheless abusive."

"You can't know what's traumatic to someone else. Maybe his mother didn't breastfeed him. That could be traumatic."

"Okay, but there are people who experienced much worse forms of trauma, who are not abusive."

"You can't say that someone's trauma is not so bad compared to someone else's! All trauma matters!"

This is also perfectly compatible with the mainstream, common assumptions of mainstream American society. It's consistent with the way most mainstream writers frame racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry as the product of "disaffected" or "disenfranchised" working-class people, ignoring their popularity with successful, powerful people. It's consistent with how all discussions of mass violence are derailed by discussions of "bullying" and "social isolation" (even when there's no evidence the perpetrators were bullied or isolated by anything other than their own choices). Or how "gay panic" and "trans panic" are considered valid defenses to murder, because a straight person's fear is more important than a queer person's life.

Ideas that were intended to validate traumatized people are being distorted into ways to prop up shoddy, bigoted theories (like "all [thing I don't like] is caused by trauma") and shield oppressive people from criticism. No. Not all traumatic experiences are equally severe. Not all traumatic experiences are equally RELEVANT. And if you experience "having to recognize that other people have rights, too" or "being treated as equal, rather than superior" as "traumatic," the problem is you.

Empathy

 Empathy is great, but it's a poor substitute for a moral code. If your moral code only extends as far as people you can empathize with, it's probably leaving out a lot of people you've unconsciously learned not to think of as people.

Short-eyelash Disorder

 "We need the medical model and the concept of 'mental illness' so people can have access to medications. You can't have medications unless they're treating an illness."

There is literally medication to make your eyelashes longer.

Functioning

 Humans don't function. We're not machines, designed to fulfill a specific "function" at which we can fail and "malfunction." We're people, with agency and goals and dignity and free will.

I see people objecting to "high-functioning"/"low-functioning" terminology because "It's a generalization" and "You can't know how well someone functions by looking at them," but these objections are beside the point -- humans don't function. We're people, not machines.

What is a "dysfunctional" family or relationship? Why does a family or relationship have a "function"? Why do humans have to "function" in order to have a happy, fulfilling, respectful relationship? Why can't we have a happy family without being required to participate in some "functionality"?

When you say that a neurodivergent/disabled person who passes for neurotypical/abled is "high-functioning" and a neurodivergent/disabled person who doesn't pass is "low-functioning," you're saying that the "function" of disabled people is to pass for abled. We don't get to decide our own goals and intentions -- our "function" has been assigned to us, and we can only pass or fail at it.

Disabled adults are said to "function at the level of (younger age)." We can't function at the level of three year olds, because three year olds don't function. They explore their environment and try to climb things, but they don't "function." They haven't yet internalized the capitalist message that their existence must be justified by "functioning."

So please, please, stop using words related to "functioning," "dysfunctional," "functioning level" in reference to people.