Hidden & Intersectional Neurodiversity in a Politically Charged Era
Sunday, February 23, 2025.
Let’s go beyond surface-level hashtags and explore the rich tapestry of hidden neurodiversity and intersectional neurodiversity—trends that are challenging how we define identity in today’s politically charged climate.
Alongside authentic neurodivergent narratives, we’ll also ponder a provocative question: Will “really smart people” become a protected class in Trump’s second term?
Unveiling Hidden & Intersectional Neurodiversity
While mainstream conversations about neurodiversity often spotlight well-known traits, many souls with subtler, less visible characteristics are stepping forward.
Hidden neurodiversity refers to those traits that may not immediately grab headlines but are no less significant in shaping our experiences.
When combined with intersectionality—acknowledging that our neurological differences interact with our gender, race, sexuality, and other identities—we begin to see the full spectrum of human diversity.
These discussions, vibrant on platforms tagged #HiddenNeurodiversity, #IntersectionalNeurodiversity, and #NeurodivergentNarratives, are rewriting the script on who gets to be seen, heard, and understood.
Political Stress and the Culture Wars
In today’s tumultuous political landscape, these ideas are not without controversy.
The very notion of embracing hidden and intersectional aspects of neurodiversity has become a lightning rod in the broader debates over identity politics.
On one side, advocates argue that recognizing every facet of neurodivergence is essential for true inclusion.
On the other, critics worry that an ever-expanding list of protected identities may dilute existing civil rights protections or be manipulated for political gain.
This tension plays out not only in academic journals and social media threads but also in the heated rhetoric of political campaigns.
The Big Question: Will “Really Smart People” Become a Protected Class in Trump’s Second Term?
Ah, the million-dollar question—and one that sparkles with irony.
The phrase “really smart people” has been tossed around in political commentary, sometimes as a tongue-in-cheek critique of elitism, other times as a sincere call to recognize intellectual contributions.
In the context of Trump’s potential second term, some commentators have speculated (with a wink and a nudge) whether policies might shift to protect intellectual ability or exceptional cognitive traits as a distinct category.
However, a deeper look suggests that while the political climate is indeed charged, formal legal protections tend to evolve slowly and are typically rooted in longstanding civil rights frameworks (Armstrong, 2010; Milton, 2012).
Currently, protected classes are defined by characteristics such as race, gender, and disability.
Although neurodiversity advocates argue passionately for recognition of diverse cognitive profiles—including those aspects that might be seen as “really smart”—the idea of creating a protected class solely for intellectual ability remains more satirical than substantive.
In other words, while political rhetoric might flirt with the notion, legal reform in this area would require a fundamental rethinking of our civil rights framework—something that even a charismatic leader’s second term is unlikely to deliver overnight.
Research Insights
Scholars like Cage, Di Monaco, and Newell (2018) remind us that when neurodiversity intersects with other identities, the resulting challenges and strengths are both unique and profound.
Meanwhile, Milton (2012) introduced ideas—like the “double empathy problem”—that highlight how miscommunications can occur on both sides of the neurodiversity conversation. These studies confirm that our identities are layered, complex, and, at times, subject to political manipulation.
Looking Ahead: Evolving Narratives in a Politically Complex Future
So, where do we go from here? As these debates continue to unfold, we might expect:
More Inclusive Policy Debates: Advocates will keep pushing for policies that recognize the full scope of neurodiversity. This means embracing both the hidden and the intersectional aspects of our identities, even as political forces try to simplify or co-opt these narratives.
Nuanced Research and Dialogue: Future studies are likely to delve deeper into how different identities interact—informing a more refined approach to support systems that don’t pit one group against another.
Political Rhetoric vs. Legal Reality: While the provocative idea of protecting “really smart people” might gain traction in campaign speeches or satirical commentary, meaningful legal change will hinge on comprehensive reforms rather than catchy slogans.
The conversation around neurodiversity, like all vibrant social debates, will continue to evolve. Amid the political stress and cultural clashes, one thing is clear: celebrating the rich mosaic of human identity—be it hidden, intersectional, or brilliantly unique—is a cause worth championing.
Final thoughts
In these charged political times, the fight for recognition of hidden and intersectional neurodiversity is more urgent than ever.
While some provocative ideas—like the notion of a protected class for “really smart people”—spark lively debate and humorous banter, the reality is that lasting change will come from inclusive policies that honor all facets of human identity.
So, whether you’re tweeting under #HiddenNeurodiversity or sharing your unique neurodivergent narrative, know that your voice is part of a larger, dynamic conversation that challenges outdated norms and hopefully paves the way for a more inclusive future.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Armstrong, T. (2010). The power of neurodiversity: Unleashing the advantages of your differently wired brain. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of autism acceptance and mental health in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(4), 1335–1346.
Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Autism, 16(5), 431–444.