Wavefreal58
Quote:
Facetiousness at work.
The point is that even though words evolve in meaning, that evolution must have some grounding in reality. The term neuro-typical has evolved from meaning "not autistic" to "normal neurology". No one has a normal neurology. This has rendered the concept of NT mostly impotent. May as well call red blue. It communicates nothing just well as the term "NT".
Just on the face value of the word "neurotypical"~
something is "typical", that something is "neuro", which would be the neurology. Typical Neurology.
If there is no such thing as "normal" neurology then to use the word "neurotypical" seems silly to begin with.
Just by looking at the face value of the word it would then bring up the question of what are you saying ASD's have?, "atypical neurology". Atypical from what? Yet there is no such thing as normal neurology?
Saying the word "neurotypical", simply meant "not autistic", seems like a very silly word to come up with for such a definition.
It seems more likely this word is a way to say "normal" without the obvious antonym of "abnormal".