A new NDIS Act + disability euphemism as psychosocial hazards

Welcome to Mostly Unlearning, a newsletter that amplifies accessibility and disability voices towards more impactful commercial and human outcomes.

Today's edition was going to be a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) explainer for those in my network who are getting clickbait headlines but no details. However, the Minister for NDIS, Bill Shorten , introduced an NDIS Act into parliament on Wednesday. So, this long weekend, I’ll be reading up on this proposed legislation and will comment next week. If you can't wait that long, I always enjoy Dr George Taleporos (GAICD, PhD) commentary.

So today's edition explores important issues related to neurodiversity and workplace dynamics while encouraging readers to reflect on their language and behaviors. We will explore euphemistic language, psychosocial hazards, and reverse ableism, prompted by Adelaide S. post this week on LinkedIn.

Warning: I’ll use controversial and outdated terms to illustrate key points. 

Euphemisms for neurodiversity and disability

I see many posts from people rejecting euphemisms like “neurospicy” or “superpower”, “differently abled” and “special needs”. Ironically, people with disability experience lower expectations alongside higher expectations from statements like this. Not every autistic person can count cards like Rain Man.

It was this post by Adelaide S. that prompted today's edition.

It was “neurosparkly” that caught my attention. If neurotypical is the opposite of neurodivergent, what’s the opposite euphemism to “neurospicy” or “neurosparkly”? Neuroplain? Neurodull? These seem better suited to explain food or diamonds rather than a person's cognitive abilities.

What might be the consequence of calling someone "neuroplain" or "neurodull"? How would a workplace respond similarly or differently to using terms like “on the spectrum” or “neurosparkly,” particularly under psychosocial hazards legislation and the rise of positive duty obligations for employers? 

Caveat: I’m not a lawyer or an HR professional. I’m someone who hears from disabled people about their experiences at work through a range of disabled communities I spend my time in. These are my unlearning thoughts. If anything resonates, please speak to a friend or a professional for tailored guidance. 

Let's explore!

“You’re a bit neurodull”

I hope no one ever said that. It's clearly meant offensively. It implies that not being neurodivergent is somehow inferior. What could or should happen in a workplace setting? 

It would be noticed because it's uncommon.

A statement like this would stand out because we don't often hear comments about someone's lack of difference or lack of disability. Similar to the MONA exhibition, the Ladies Lounge is an exhibition space exclusively for women (and is currently being sued for Gender Discrimination.)

It stands out because men are not used to being excluded from spaces. This wouldn’t be noticed as readily if it was yet another male-only space. Women would shrug their shoulders and move on, mostly unsurprised by yet another space from which they are excluded. It's barely noteworthy.

I'd hope, at work, calling someone dull would lead to a conversation about professionalism at work. What might that conversation look like?

Psychosocial hazard

In Australia, psychosocial hazards legislation refers to laws and regulations aimed at protecting workers from workplace factors that can negatively impact their mental health and well-being. These hazards include stress, bullying, harassment, violence, and other psychological risks. The legislation requires employers to identify, assess, and manage these hazards to ensure a safe and healthy work environment. It often involves implementing measures to prevent harm to employees' mental health.

When a colleague calls someone "on the spectrum," it could potentially violate psychosocial hazards legislation in Australia, particularly if it contributes to creating a hostile, discriminatory, or harassing work environment. It has the potential to hurt someone's feelings and upset workplace dynamics. More specifically, here's how this legislation might be applied in such a situation:

• Identifying the Issue: The first step would involve recognising that the comment has the potential to create a psychosocial hazard by contributing to discrimination or stigma against neurodiverse individuals.
• Assessing the Risk: Employers would need to assess the risk posed by such comments, considering factors such as the context in which the comment was made, the impact it had on the individual targeted, and whether it reflects a broader pattern of discriminatory behaviour in the workplace.
• Managing the Hazard: To address the issue, employers may take various measures, including speaking with and offering support to those involved and adjusting training or policies to prohibit discriminatory language.
• Legal Compliance: Employers must ensure that their actions comply with relevant anti-discrimination legislation, such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those who are on the autism spectrum.

Overall, applying psychosocial hazards legislation in this context would involve addressing the negative impact of discriminatory language on employees' mental health and well-being, promoting a culture of respect and inclusion, and taking proactive steps to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

With that in mind, what might happen with neurodiversity euphemisms?

What about “neurosparkly” or “neurospicy”? 

What might happen if a colleague leaves a meeting and says, “They’re a bit neurospicy, aren’t they?”

Terms like "neurosparkly" or "neurospicy" are often used colloquially within certain communities to describe individuals who are neurodivergent, particularly those with conditions like autism or ADHD, in a positive or celebratory light. However, the appropriateness of these terms in a workplace setting would depend on several factors:

• Impact on Individuals: Is the use of such terms empowering or potentially offensive to neurodivergent individuals? While some people may embrace these terms as a form of self-identification or empowerment, others may find them trivialising or inappropriate.
• Context and Intent: The context in which these terms are used matters. If they are used in a supportive, inclusive manner to celebrate neurodiversity and promote a positive work environment, they may be perceived differently than if they are used in a mocking or derogatory way.
• Employee Feedback: If someone from the neurodiverse community says they don't like it. Then it's not appropriate. 

The potential for hurt feelings should be considered irrespective of the groups involved. Language has the power to impact individuals differently, and it's crucial to approach discussions about terminology with sensitivity and awareness of potential harm.

Reverse Ableism

Calling someone neurodull or using any euphemism for neurotypical risks hurting their feelings and upsetting workplace dynamics. Similar to the above points, context, impact, and obligations dictate how an employer might deal with such a comment. However, there may be a difference when a comment is about the majority. Neurodull would be a comment on someone from a majority group, so how might it be treated similarly or differently to a neurodivergent euphemism?

It rings similar to discussions on reverse sexism or reverse racism, as Hannah Ferguson of Cheek Media explains her perspective on reverse racism. In the post's caption, Hannah seeks to differentiate between racism and discrimination.

“‘racism’ is different to ‘discrimination’, language matters - this is an ✨ over-simplified ✨way to articulate the conversations that are going to emerge regarding the allegations against Sam Kerr.” - Hannah Ferguson on Cheek Media Instagram

I don't have the answers to the questions posed in today's article, and that's okay.

I am confident that commenting on someone’s cognitive differences is objectively not nice. While sometimes necessary, it should be done with respect, privacy, and positive intent. Even playful or light-hearted terms warrant consideration for potential impact on others and the workplace environment. 

In all of the above cases, this represents a valuable educational opportunity. When problematic terms are used inadvertently or without malicious intent, it could present an opportunity for education and awareness-building around respectful language and neurotypes. Overall, it is essential to be mindful of the language we use when discussing disability and accommodations, prioritising terminology that respects the dignity, autonomy, and agency of individuals with disabilities. Learning how to use respectful and inclusive language fosters a culture of mutual respect, understanding, and appreciation for diversity.

I won't be using the euphemisms from this article. People like Adelaide S. are asking others not to. I'll allow people from these communities to use them. about themselves, should they want to.

Unlearning prompts

• What is a psychosocial hazard, and how might it apply to euphemisms? 
• You wouldn't say dull, so why say sparkly?
• What it feels like to be called out for being different, even when your difference is ‘normal’ or ‘common’?

Join the unlearning.

You can subscribe to learn with me. I'll share what I learn (and unlearn) about accessibility and disability. Together, we will consider the implications for impactful commercial and human outcomes.