01/05/2026
My Perspective on Neurodivergence: Inherited and Acquired, Biological and Political
I want to take a moment to be clear about where I stand when it comes to neurodivergence - especially in relation to inherited vs acquired forms, and how I understand their biological and social dimensions.
🧬 Neurodivergence is Real - Even When it's not Diagnosed
The term neurodivergent was coined by Kassiane Asasumasu to describe those whose cognitive and neurological function diverge from dominant norms - not just those who have a recognised diagnosis.
For some of us, this neurodivergence is inherent. It shows up early, follows us across the lifespan, and often runs in families. It can be seen in the way we process sensory input, language, time, relationships, patterns, and meaning.
For others, neurodivergence arises through experience - most often through trauma, neglect, burnout, dysregulation, or systemic harm.
Many of us experience both concurrently.
There is no need to draw hard lines between “valid” and “invalid” neurodivergence. All divergence is real when it’s lived - especially when it reshapes how someone exists in the world.
🧬 Inherited and Acquired Divergence are Both Biological
This is key for me: just because something is trauma-induced or adaptive doesn't mean it’s not biological.
Trauma leaves epigenetic markers.
Chronic stress rewires the HPA axis.
Emotional neglect alters synaptic pruning and brain development.
Long-term burnout or masking can affect immune function, mitochondrial resilience, and hormonal balance.
None of these things are abstract. They are embodied. So when someone is wired differently - whether from birth or as a result of complex survival - that wiring is divergence. It deserves recognition, not dismissal.
🧬 Pathology is not the Same as Biology
It’s important not to confuse the two.
Saying “neurodivergence is biological” is not the same as saying “neurodivergence is a disorder.” Even if that biology is itself labelled as pathological or a disorder; that's perspective.
What science pathologises is often just a difference (or divergence) that is misunderstood (misinterpreted through a narrow lens) or punished by a system that refuses to recognise and won't accommodate it.
Biology isn’t about diagnosis - it’s about describing what something exists as. In this case, it includes variation in genomics, brain architecture, immune sensitivity, sensory systems, and stress response pathways.
In fact, many people who live with inherited divergence carry specific genetic variants (e.g., in dopamine transport, glutamate signalling, mitochondrial function, connective tissue, methylation, etc.) that correlate with the traits we associate with neurodivergence.
Those traits can also be amplified or triggered by environmental exposures and trauma.
It’s not either-or, it’s both - and that complexity matters. We need to be able to hold nuance and complexity when we understand genomic divergence for what it is.
🧬 Why I Often Just say “Divergent” Instead
Sometimes I feel more inclined to use the word divergent on its own now - without the “neuro” - because I find that it captures something broader, something more complete.
Of course many people are neurologically divergent - but many are also often:
Immunologically divergent
Physiologically divergent
Connective tissue divergent
Sensory processing divergent
Metabolically and hormonally divergent
Developmentally and regulatory divergent
-Alongside their neurology (all as part of their unique divergent spectrum).
These are not separate categories. They are deeply interconnected layers of a single terrain.
So when I say divergent, I’m referring to the whole picture.
Not a neurological variation by itself - but a multisystemic architecture that shows up across disciplines, across time, and across lived experience.
I see through that lens - transdisciplinary, whole-body, pattern-based - and the language of divergence feels more accurate and more spacious than anything that ties us only to the brain.
🧬 A Terrain-Based Model of Divergence
The framework I work from is terrain-based. That means I see neurodivergence (or divergence more broadly) as something that emerges from the interaction between:
Genetic terrain (inherited variants, structural differences).
Epigenetics through environmental exposures (toxins, trauma, diet, sensory load).
Developmental processes (pruning, plasticity, resilience).
Social context (isolation, access needs, accommodation, trauma).
Embodiment and feedback loops (immune signalling, nervous system reactivity).
In this model, some divergence is innate; some is acquired. All of it is real, and none of it requires a formal label to matter.
🧬 Identity and Integrity
I believe strongly in the power of self-identification - but I also believe in body-based truth. For me, the term neurodivergent holds both:
It’s a political identity, claimed in resistance to normative systems
And it’s a biological reality, expressed in nervous systems, tissues, and cells
We should not need to erase biology in order to be inclusive. We can acknowledge that trauma and oppression shape the body, just as genomics and development do. We can honour experience and mechanism. We can centre both the politics and the physiology of divergence.
When we do, we make space for everyone who’s been pushed out - not just from systems, but from language itself.
©️ -Neurotopia CIC
