At the risk of alienating myself and my business, as a neurodivergent therapist, advocate and speaker, it would be remiss if I did not discuss this emerging trend. I have personally found myself in the positio of being vilified and excluded. Neurodiversity-affirming practice is supposed to be about inclusion, respect, and empowerment—yet within these spaces, a troubling pattern has emerged: gatekeeping.
The rise of neuro-affirming language and approaches should be a positive shift, moving us away from outdated, deficit-based models. But instead of welcoming more people into the conversation, we’re seeing self-appointed advocates and professionals policing who is “allowed” to be neuro-affirming—and the damage is real.
The Rise of Gatekeeping in Neuro-Affirming Spaces
Gatekeeping happens when individuals or groups decide they alone have the authority to define what is and isn’t neuro-affirming. Instead of fostering education, growth, and progress, it creates a culture of exclusion, shame, and ideological purity testing.
It can look like:
Policing language and demanding rigid adherence to specific terminology without room for nuance or learning.
Publicly shaming professionals or parents who are trying to unlearn outdated approaches.
Dismissing neurodivergent individuals whose experiences do not align with a specific narrative.
Labeling professionals as “harmful” or “unsafe” simply because they are in the process of evolving their practice.
Silencing alternative perspectives—especially from those with intersecting identities (multiply disabled, non-speaking, PDA, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+).
What started as a movement for empowerment has, in some spaces, turned into a rigid, exclusionary club.
The Damage Gatekeeping Causes
While gatekeeping is often framed as “protecting” neuro-affirming practice, it does more harm than good.
It Shuts Out Professionals Who Want to Learn and Evolve
Many professionals genuinely want to improve their understanding of neurodivergence and shift towards neuro-affirming models.
But instead of education and mentorship, they are often met with hostility if they don’t get everything right immediately.
This discourages learning and creates a fear-based environment where people are too afraid to ask questions.
It Creates an Echo Chamber
Not all neurodivergent people have the same needs, experiences, or perspectives.
Gatekeeping reinforces one dominant narrative and excludes neurodivergent individuals who do not fit within it.
This silences important discussions and prevents the evolution of neuro-affirming practice.
It Replicates the Very Harm We Are Fighting Against
Traditional deficit-based models have historically ignored or dismissed neurodivergent voices in favour of professional expertise.
Now, some neuro-affirming spaces are doing the same thing—dismissing professionals who are trying to learn, or invalidating neurodivergent people who have different needs.
Replacing one form of exclusion with another is NOT progress.
It Slows the Spread of Neuro-Affirming Approaches
If professionals feel attacked instead of supported when they try to adopt neuro-affirming models, many will simply give up and return to old methods.
Instead of making neuro-affirming practices more widely accessible, gatekeeping limits their reach to an insular group.
The result? Fewer neurodivergent people get the support they need.
So, who gets to define what is truly neuro-affirming?
The answer is not a select group of self-appointed advocates or professionals.
Lived experience should be at the centre—but lived experience is not a monolith. Different neurodivergent people will have different perspectives, needs, and approaches.
Neuro-affirming practice should be evolving—not a static, gatekept ideology.
Professionals, parents, and allies should be welcomed into the conversation—with a focus on education, not exclusion.
The Danger of Gatekeeping: Why We Must Do Better
If we continue down the path of gatekeeping and exclusion, we risk turning neuro-affirming practice into just another rigid, inaccessible framework—one that does not serve the diversity of the neurodivergent community.
Instead, we need to:
Encourage open dialogue and education. Not everyone starts with perfect knowledge, and that’s okay.
Create space for neurodivergent voices, in all their diversity. No single group or ideology should dominate the conversation.
Support professionals, parents, and allies in their learning journeys. If we want change, we must welcome people into the process.
Acknowledge that neuro-affirming practice is evolving. There is no one “final” version of what it should look like—it must adapt to new research, lived experiences, and the needs of the community.
Neurodiversity-affirming practice should be about building bridges, not walls.
What’s your experience with gatekeeping in neuro-affirming spaces? Have you seen it happening? Let’s talk. ⬇️
Comments