At the risk of alienating myself and my business, as a neurodivergent therapist, advocate, and speaker, it would be remiss of me not to discuss this emerging trend. I have personally found myself in the position of being vilified and excluded. Neurodiversity-affirming practices are intended to promote 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The rise of neuro-affirming language and approaches should be a positive shift, moving us away from outdated, deficit-based models.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• Publicly shaming professionals or parents who are trying to unlearn outdated approaches.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.
• Labelling 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.