2019 - Neuroqueer Disidentification - Egner

803284
research-article2018
GASXXX10.1177/0891243218803284Gender & SocietyEgner / Neuroqueer Disidentification
“The Disability Rights Community

was Never Mine”:
Neuroqueer Disidentification
Justine E. Egner
University of Wisconsin La Crosse, USA
Drawing from contemporary blog data, this article examines an emerging project termed
“neuroqueer.” Neuroqueer is a collaboration of activists, academics, and bloggers engag-
ing in online community building. Neuroqueer requires those who engage in it to disiden-
tify from both oppressive dominant and counterculture identities that perpetuate destructive
medical model discourses of cure. It is a queer/crip response to discussions about gender,
sexuality, and disability as pathology that works to deconstruct normative identity catego-
ries. Blog members employ neuroqueer practices to subversively combat exclusion
through rejection of able-hetero assimilation and counteridentification in favor of disiden-
tification. Of particular interest for this special issue are the ways in which neuroqueer
perspectives build more fluid conceptualizations of both gender and intersectionality
through conscious disidentification from neurotypical norms and medical notions of cure
on which they are often unconsciously based.
Keywords: neuroqueer; intersectionality; feminist disability studies; queer; neurodiver-

sity; gender
D rawing from relevant contemporary blog data, this article is an exam-

ination of the emerging project “neuroqueer.” Neuroqueer is a crip
project of disidentification (Munoz 1999) co-created by academics, activ-
Author’s note: I would like to thank Dr. Sara Green for her insightful critiques. I
also thank Gender & Society Editor Jo Reger, the editors of this special issue, and the
reviewers for their comments. Additionally, I acknowledge Carley Geiss, Dr. Allison
Carey, Dr. Sara Crawley, Shannon Suddeth, Dr. Donileen Loseke, Dr. Maralee Mayberry,
and Dr. Linda Blum for their helpful insights. Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Justine Egner, University of Wisconsin La Crosse, 1725 State
Street, 437A Wimberly Hall, La Crosse, WI 54601, USA; e-mail: Jegner@uwlax.edu.
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol 33 No. 1, February, 2019 123–147

DOI: 10.1177/0891243218803284
© 2018 by The Author(s)
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
124 GENDER & SOCIETY/February 2019
ists, and members of online neuroqueer communities that rejects both

oppressive dominant and counterculture identities that perpetuate destruc-
tive medical model discourses of progress and cure. In other words, neuro-
queering is a rejection of able-hetero assimilation and counteridentification
in favor of disidentification.
The terms queer, crip, neurodivergency, and neuroqueer are used in a
variety of ways and are often fluid in their meanings. I use the term queer
as an identity—when bloggers specifically identify as such; as a theoretical
approach that challenges dominant notions of categorization and identity
boundaries (queer theory); and as a verb to signify the act of challenging
these categories (to queer). Similarly, I use the term crip (theory) to
describe challenges to binary notions of boundaries between disabled and
“normal” identities/bodyminds1 (Egner 2017; Kafer 2013; McRuer 2006).
Neurodivergency references deviations from neurotypicality, while neuro-
divergent refers to those who identify as non-neurotypical (Strand 2017).
Neurodiveristy is a paradigm/politic/movement that recognizes the diver-
sity of human neurology. As a politic, neurodivergency is understood as
natural human variation not to be devaluated (Silberman 2017). Neuroqueer
perspectives challenge typical understandings of identity categories through
disidentification processes. A neuroqueer project not only questions typical
conceptions of gender but also pivots away from normative gender catego-
ries altogether. Neuroqueer is a queer/crip response to normative discus-
sions about gender, sexuality, and disability as pathology. In this article, I
address the following questions: What/who is neuroqueer(ing)? What does
neuroqueer disidentification mean in relation to existing gender, sexuality,
and disability theory? What is its value for feminist, sociological knowl-
edge projects such as intersectionality scholarship?
Rationale for Neuroqueering Intersectionality

Feminist disability scholars have called on gender and intersectional-
ity theorists to incorporate disability into their examinations. As many
gender scholars (e.g., West and Zimmerman 1987) and queer theorists
(e.g., Butler [1990] 2006) have explained, gender is constructed and
performed through the body. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how
disability informs and is informed by this construction (Cheng 2009;
Gerschick 2000). Intersectional feminist scholars have opened up the
possibility of examining the social implication of how gender, race,
class, and sexuality intersect, yet this scholarship taking up disability
remains limited. For gender scholars to consider disability within an
intersectional framework, it is imperative that we consider neurodiversity
Egner / Neuroqueer Disidentification 125
alongside bodily diversity to challenge common presumptions of gender

theory that “everyone has the same ability to learn, understand, respond
to, and be held accountable for gendered expectations” (Gerschick 2000,
1265). For people with disabilities (specifically psychological, intellec-
tual, and developmental disabilities), this is not always the case.
Neuroqueering provides an intersectional examination of gender wherein
neurodiversity is taken up.
Within disability studies, including work done by crip theorists, schol-
arship has been primarily concerned with physical disability. Only a small
number of scholars have applied neuroqueer approaches (Falek 2016;
Kafer 2016; McWade, Milton, and Beresford 2015; Milton 2017; Richter
2017). Neuroqueering provides disability and gender theorists with an
approach to examine how able-mindedness is tied to and coalesces
through able-bodiedness2 and practices of normalization of the body.
Neuroqueering answers Kafer’s (2013) call that scholars should critically
attempt to “trace the ways in which compulsory able-bodiedness/able-
mindedness and compulsory heterosexuality intertwine in the service of
normativity” (16) and consider how discourses of defectiveness are
employed to justify oppression of “people whose bodies, minds, desires,
and practices differ from the unmarked norm” (16).
Work at the intersections of gender, sexuality, disability, and neurodi-
versity from neuroqueer perspectives is required to not only refine crip
and intersectional theoretical models but also to consider implications for
the complex lived experiences at these intersections. I argue that neuro-
queer disidentification is a contestation of discrimination and practices of
normalization through the rejection of both able-hetero assimilation and
counteridentification in favor of disidentification.
Broader Contexts of the Intersections of Disability, Gender, and

Sexuality
Disabled people are frequently de-gendered and de-sexualized in
media, popular imagination, and research. Scholars taking up disability
and gender together have pointed to social assumptions that contribute
to the construction of gender and the consequences disabled people
experience when they are unable to meet typical performative expecta-
tions (Cheng 2009; Gerschick 2000; Sandahl 2003). Norms of gendered
behavior are based on nondisabled bodies (Kafer 2013); thus, “bodies of
people with disabilities make them vulnerable to be denied recognition
as women and men” (Gerschick 2000, 1264). Disabled men frequently
find their masculinity called into question and disabled women often
experience negative “assumptions about their identities and abilities”

(Cheng 2009, 115). In consequence, and as evident by practices of insti-
tutionalization, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and infantilization
of disabled people, their bodies are consistently policed and they are
frequently denied access to their own sexualities and genders
(Hirschmann 2013; McRuer 2006).
The experience of being denied one’s own gender identity/expres-
sion, and sexuality, is particularly prevalent for neurodivergent people.
Some researchers have hypothesized that autism is caused by high levels
of fetal testosterone and is a manifestation of an “extreme male brain”
(e.g., Baron-Cohen 2003). Such work essentializes gender differences
by rooting autism in biological maleness and contributes to the degend-
ering of autistic people while reinforcing cultural gender stereotypes
(Bumiller 2008). “From a feminist perspective the essentialist version of
autism is a disturbing reconstruction of gender and disability stereotypes
in the guise of new scientific knowledge” (Bumiller 2008, 973).
LGBTQ+ and Disability

The notion that disabled people are neither gendered nor sexual leads to
the invalidation and invisibility of LGBTQ+ disabled people, further mar-
ginalizing them (Egner 2017). The identities of people who are disabled
and sexual become more contentious when they identify with sexualities
deemed non-normative (McRuer 2006). Historical practices of medicaliz-
ing disability and sexuality have functioned to delegitimize both queer
sexualities and genders, as well as the sexuality and genders of disabled
people. There is a long history of medicalizing and describing queer identi-
ties and practices as disability/illness (Tiefer 1996), and the gender and
sexuality of people with bodily/mental differences have been denied and
pathologized (Kafer 2013; McRuer 2006). Researchers have claimed that
it is common for autistic people to experience “cross-gender identity prob-
lems” associated with their autism; thus LGBTQ+ autistic people often are
denied their sexuality and gender identities (van Schalkwyk, Klingensmith,
and Volkmar 2015). This results in autistic LGBTQ+ people frequently
being denied access to LGBTQ+ resources and support. Unfortunately,
mainstream notions of gender and sexuality have frequently overlooked
the diverse ways gender and sexuality are expressed (Cheng 2009). Queer
theories can “provide other perspectives for understanding different reali-
ties and help legitimate different gender expressions and ways of being”
(Cheng 2009, 116). I suggest a turn to neuroqueer to understand the per-
spectives of neurodivergent people in relation to sexuality and gender.
Neuroqueerness in the Literature

The term neuroqueer(ing) has recently been employed in academic
work but is rarely defined. Neuroqueer has been used to signify how a
person or group may identify, as seen in Kafer’s Un/Safe Disclosers
(2016) when addressing the inclusivity/exclusivity of disability studies.
Similarly, Falek (2016) in a review of “Defiant” by Monje (an author on
the neuroqueer blogs), describes the main character as a “neuroqueer
protagonist.” Other minimal attention includes a mention of neuroqueer
alongside crip and queer theory (Milton 2017) and in work exploring the
intersections between neurodiversity and trans* and queer identities
(McWade, Milton, and Beresford 2015). In one of the few works that
employ neuroqueer as a theoretical approach, Richter (2017) uses a neu-
roqueer critique to examine discourses of autism as a crisis in need of
cure and provides alternative pro-autism narratives. Richter offers
scholars an excellent example of how neuroqueer can be used within
scholarship. However, no distinction is made between queer, crip, and
neuroqueer and it is not explained what exactly neuroqueer critique is/
how it is employed. I provide this explanation through an examination
of neuroqueer blogs.
Feminist Disability Studies and The Development

of Crip Theory
Critical and feminist disability studies are frequently constructed in

response to pathologization of bodies and critique other models of disabil-
ity for not being intersectional enough. Specifically, disability critical race
theory (Discrit) scholars aim to “illustrate the value of intersectional
approaches to race and dis/ability” (Annamma, Connor, and Ferri 2013,
4) and have critiqued the whiteness of disability studies, arguing that peo-
ple of color have been excluded from analysis of disability (Asch 2001;
Erevelles 2014). Moreover, feminist disability scholars have argued that
other models have excluded women and LGBTQ+ people (Berger 2013;
Garland-Thomson 2005).
Such approaches have laid the foundation for the development of
crip theory, which developed as feminist and sexuality scholars took up
questions of the body through a purposeful amalgamation of disability
studies and queer theory (for an outline of this trajectory, see Egner 2017).
Crip theory takes up the feminist critique that scholars of disability have
been unconcerned with intersectionality, attempting to deconstruct
practices of normalizing/denormalizing identities. Disabled identities

and crip critiques assert political, social, and theoretical power (Sandahl
2003; Schalk 2013).
Queer and crip theoretical perspectives are not synonymous, should not
be conflated, and are not necessarily interchangeable. They do, however,
have intertwined histories and applicability (Kafer 2013; McRuer 2006,
2013; Samuels 2003; Sandahl 2003). Both attempt deconstruction (often
through practices of discourse), are concerned with challenging reduction-
ist understandings of human experience, and question the utility of binary
understandings of normality versus abnormality (Egner 2017, 161). I
argue that neuroqueer disidentification can be taken up as neurologically
focused cripping.
Crip Theory
Crip theory offers a variety of tactics that can be useful to scholars
interested in adding nuance to intersectionality (for a more extensive
exploration of crip tactics, see Egner 2017). One tactic is to understand
intersectional identities as fluid and complex. A benefit of cripping is
how its fluidity provides new insights into identity politics. Crip scholars
prevent essentializing minority identities and avoid perpetuating binaries
based on notions that promote some bodyminds as more valuable than
others (McRuer 2006). This is evident in how crip disability scholars
have conceptualized intersectionality (see sections below).
Another tactic relevant to intersectionality is to reject the notion that
disabled people must seek cure and provide alternative narratives to
medical model conceptions of cure. Crip scholars reject dominant dis-
courses of cure as progress, understanding that progressive pictures of
future utopias, built on imperatives of ridding humans of disability and
illness, devalue disabled bodyminds (Kafer 2013). Disability scholars
draw attention to the common question thrust upon disabled people:
“equality and inclusion of the disabled is good but at the end of the day
wouldn’t you rather not be disabled?” Such questions highlight the
assumption that able-bodiedness is a preferred, collectively shared goal
(Berube 1996; McRuer 2006). For those who accept the curative and
progressive “individual” medical model, the answer is “yes, I would
rather not be disabled.” However, for those active in cripping projects,
the answer is a resounding “go fuck yourself.”
The crip conception of answering no to this question is more subver-
sive than the simplicity of disability pride. This exhibits a third tactic
crip theorists employ to deconstruct normative expectations through
subversive tactics. The crip conception is one of valuing disability to the

extent that if it could be a choice, that there is nothing wrong with
choosing to be disabled. As long as compulsory able-bodiedness perme-
ates the popular imagination, disabled bodyminds can never truly be a
preferred existence over able-bodiedness/mindedness, and therefore
disabled people are not truly valued (no matter how inclusive a society).
Able-Mindedness: A Missing Piece

Crip theory is constructed around the notion of compulsory able-
bodiedness. However, disability studies has paid little attention to able-
mindedness. Kafer (2013) argues that by combining “references to
bodies with references to minds and pair[ing] ‘compulsory able-
bodiedness’ with ‘compulsory able-mindedness,’” disability scholars
can become more inclusive (16). Neuroqueering does just this; it can be
conceptualized as a neurologically and mind-based crip theory.
Neuroqueering provides unique and rich conceptualizations of what
able-mindedness is, how it is entangled with conceptions of compul-
sory able-bodiedness and compulsory heterosexuality, and how these
compulsions permeate every layer of social life.
Intersectionality and Disability

Feminist disability and Discrit studies have called on scholars of dis-
ability to draw from intersectional perspectives (Crenshaw 1991) to
construct their work and have asked intersectionality scholars to incor-
porate disability into their analyses (Annamma, Connor, and Ferri
2013; Asch 2001; Erevelles and Minear 2010; Garland-Thomson 2005;
Hirschmann 2012; Kafer 2013). The absence of disability is “particu-
larly notable in scholarship employing the lens of intersectionality”
(Tevis and Griffen 2014, 240, emphasis in original). When disability is
considered, it is often rendered a descriptor of nuance (Erevelles and
Minear 2010). Feminist studies has, at times, ignored the experiences
of black women, and critical race feminisms and intersectionality stud-
ies have deployed a “similar analytical tactic through their unconscious
non-analysis of disability as it intersects with race, class, and gender
oppression” (Erevelles and Minear 2010, 128). Hirschmann
(2012) contends that feminist scholars are often better at calling for
intersectionality than engaging in it and argues that disability can allow
for the enactment of intersectionality in ways that have yet to be con-
ceptualized within feminisms. Hirschmann writes, “Intersectionality
theory tells me that as a professional, straight, white woman, for

instance, I am different from black, working class, lesbian women. Too
often there seems no recognition of what we also share” (403).
Similarly, disability theories recognize that bodily experiences, stigma-
tization, and oppression differ based on types of disability. However, it
also “maintains that this difference is precisely what makes me the
same as all these others” (403). Disability understandings of intersec-
tionality can be described like a “web,” “where we are linked to each
other sometimes directly, other times indirectly through a complicated
path of connections” (Hirschmann 2012, 403). Feminist disability and
crip approaches to intersectionality are concerned with how to include
by recognizing similarities in the experience of difference.
In recognizing identity and bodies as fluid, crip theorists take up
feminist disability scholars’ call to attend to intersectionality. Disability
“can help feminism develop intersectionality’s truly radical potential:
namely, the ways in which ‘difference’ is just another word for being
human” (Hirschmann 2012, 404). Neuroqueer disidentification is one
such approach to developing intersectionality’s most radical potential
of conceptualizing difference as similarity through practices of inter-
sectional inclusion. Through disidentification, neuroqueering breaks
down typical understandings of identity categories. Neuroqueer dis-
identification is, in part, a practice of rejecting any form of exclusion
and binaries (such as assimilation or counteridentification).
Theoretical perspectives of intersectionality benefit from consider-
ing diverse approaches to neurodiversity. A common way to approach
intersectionality is by adding yet another identity category to one’s
examination. Yet these identity categories are frequently constructed
around neurotypical norms. Neuroqueering challenges these construc-
tions, bringing together crip understandings of disability and feminist
disability approaches to intersectionality by attending to compulsory
able-mindedness through practices of disidentification.
Disidentification
Neuroqueering is a project of engaging in disidentification (Munoz
1999). For Munoz, members of minority groups have three options for
identification. First, one can identify with dominant society and make a
trade: assimilating and finding representation within normative society by
sacrificing one’s personal non-normative identities (Munoz 1999). Second,
some individuals have the option of counteridentification in which they
can identify with a marginalized (often) militant counter-cultural group.
Counteridentification may denounce dominant discourses, but such oppo-

sition often reifies and perpetuates dominant discourses through false
binaries. The third option is the performative tactic of disidentification in
which individuals resist the binary of identification/counteridentification
and reject dominant notions of normativity. “Disidentification resists the
interpolating call of ideology that fixes a subject within the state power
apparatus” (97). Through disidentification, one can break free from the
limitations of the social body (Munoz 1999). Neuroqueering is a project
that demonstrates the deconstruction of oppressive able-bodied/able-
minded discourses through disidentification.
Methods
Drawing on feminist disability research methodology (Garland-

Thomson 2005), I recognize that research involving marginalized popula-
tions should be emancipatory in focus. An objective of this project is to
highlight a group of people engaging in self-emancipation and bring fur-
ther attention to their goals and creative work. My goal is not to co-
opt their narratives but, rather, to bring their work to the attention of main-
stream academic audiences. In particular, feminist approaches to intersec-
tionality benefit from incorporating more diverse understandings of
disability as it pertains to neurodiversity.
I collected data through virtual ethnography, a methodological
approach of employing traditional ethnographic methodologies in vir-
tual spaces (Hine 2000; Maloney 2013). Similar to other ethnographic
methods, virtual ethnography is useful in exploring multifaceted con-
cepts and “offers the promise of getting closer to understanding the
ways in which people interpret the world and organize their lives”
(Hine 2000, 42). Virtual ethnography is useful in exploring the ways in
which the Internet is (and becomes) socially meaningful, allowing
researchers to examine the Internet as both culture and cultural artifact
(Hine 2000). Online sites allow individuals to express themselves.
Examining such sites is especially important when written by individu-
als who are not represented in other forms of popular media. Voices of
disabled people have been historically and culturally silenced (Berger
2013) and the “general history of disability representation is one of
oppressive or negative forms” (Hevey 1993, 423). By focusing on
blogs, voices that are silenced can be examined. Online mediums are
particularly valuable when addressing disability, as digital technologies
are able to break down some communication barriers.
Sites were chosen based on predetermined criteria, including being

currently active, updated within 12 months prior to data collection,
contain posts or comments from people discussing neuroqueer(ing),
and be completely open access. Two blogs fit the above criteria:
neurocosmopolitanism.com and neuroqueer.blogspot.com. The found-
ing authors of the two blogs, IB Grace, Melanie Yergeau, Michael
Scott Monje Jr., and Nick Walker collaborate in the construction and
exploration of neuroqueer. Although there were other bloggers and
spaces discussing neuroqueer, I focus this analysis on these two, as
they highlight neuroqueer as their central focus.
To collect data, I navigated these virtual spaces through “internal
linkages” (Maloney 2013, 133). Frequently, the two blogs referenced
each other. Posters were interacting within their blog space, as well as
with posters on the other site, effectively building an online multisite
community. Data include posts dated between 2013 and 2016, which
featured posts and comments in the form of narratives, reblogging from
other sites, pictures, videos, and poetry. Many blog commentators
remained anonymous and little demographic information was provided.
Those who did self-identify identified with a variety of genders, sexu-
alities, disabilities, and neurodivergent identities. Almost all of the
posters who self-identified described themselves as LGBTQ+ and
neurodivergent (many autistic), about half identified with other types of
disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, D/deaf, “mobility impaired,” chronic
illness/pain, mental illness). Most posters did not self-identify their
race and, of those who did, most identified as white.
I compiled data into more than 700 pages of text and images. I coded
utilizing the qualitative software program Atlas.ti searching for thematic
commonalities pertaining to the question “What is neuroqueering?”
Drawing on Loseke’s (2012) guidelines for narrative analysis, I first
began by asking questions to situate the context of these stories: Who are
the authors? Who is their audience? What type of story are they attempt-
ing to tell? Data were codified and categorized in accordance with
grounded theory practice (Charmaz 2002), generating thematic categories
across multiple posts. Through narrative analysis, I examined the con-
struction of neuroqueer through online community building of bloggers.
Narratives do not simply describe and depict “existing ideologies” (Weeks
1998); rather, through the telling of stories, they create them. New stories
“emerge when there are new people to listen to and understand them
through interpretive communities” (47).
Neuroqueer Disidentification
The blogs reveal that neuroqueering is a cripping project in disiden-

tification accomplished through themes of rejection of exclusionary
practices, neuroqueer’s ever-changing and fluid definitions and pur-
poses, a focus on anti-assimilation, and deconstruction of dominant
discourses of cure (specifically medical model understandings of disa-
bility, gender, and sexuality).
Shared Exclusion and Rejection of Exclusionary Practices

Neuroqueer bloggers describe experiencing complex, multisided
oppression. Underscoring these experiences of marginalization is the
challenge of identifying with this particular intersection of two histori-
cally socially contradicting identities (neurodivergent and LGBTQ+).
Many posters commented on this type of marginalization. One poster on
Neuroqueer.blogspot explained, “I worked hard to be ‘good’ and ‘accept-
able’ to ‘fit in’; and ‘not cause trouble’ because I knew that I was allowed
in nondisabled society only as long as I did not inconvenience them.”
Even within groups attempting to be inclusive and reject dominant
discourses, those who hold multiple, often marginalized, identities are
frequently excluded (specifically within LGBTQ+, feminist, and disabil-
ity identity–based communities). Many of the posters describe neuroqueer
as focused on inclusion and vehemently reject any group or ideology that
excludes, marginalizes, and/or is inaccessible to any person—especially
(but not limited to) neurodivergent people. In a post titled You Are Not My
Sister, Corbett Joan O’Toole wrote a letter to feminists about a conversa-
tion she had with her friend Mary:
Mary is a fierce feminist warrior. When she became disabled she used her
considerable skills to making her world better for other disabled women.
She is part of a National Community of Feminists (NCF) … Mary believed,
because it was incomprehensible to her not to, that she is an important and
respected part of that community. Yesterday she found out she was wrong.
O’Toole described how Mary was attending a women’s concert and sat with
a group from the organization NCF (pseudonym). Mary, a wheelchair user, had
moved from her chair to the ground where everyone was sitting. O’Toole
described the exclusion Mary felt within able-body/minded feminist spaces.
An hour after Mary made the trek from her wheelchair to the ground, one
of the concert organizers invited all the NCF women to join them onstage
to honor their years of community service … at this point in her story I
expect Mary to tell me how they all worked together to get her quickly into
her wheelchair so they could show their … commitments to solidarity and
social justice but … the women surrounding Mary stood up, stepped over
her, and walked rapidly up onto the stage … Mary tells me that she was
shocked by their behavior. I am not. I say to them: you are not my sisters.
You never were.
O’Toole described a neuroqueer practice that attempts to point out

exclusion, reject it, and strategize against it. Neuroqueer projects, such as
O’Toole’s disidentification from feminist “sisters,” reject the notion that
deviant behaviors and bodyminds are an individual problem and instead
recognizes that the problem is located within dominant discourses that
devalue bodily and mental diversity.
There is often little choice in which mode of identification one assumes,
as identifications/counteridentifications are often unavailable to individu-
als with complex identities (Munoz 1999). Because of the complexity and
fluidity of their intersectional identities, neuroqueer posters are excluded
from minority identity communities and thus may have no other choice
but disidentification. Posters engaging in disidentification reject exclusion
and in so doing described breaking free from oppressive societal limita-
tions (Munoz 1999) that marginalize non-normative bodyminds. Zach
Richter describes such a process in a post on Neuroqueer.blogspot
addressing neuroqueer as escapism: “It is a term located between the
socio-linguistic frequencies of affirmative liberation and negative failure
of boundaries …neuroqueer…embraces this unsureness, because it
describes the multiplicity of meanings contained within our flight.”
Neuroqueer Is Fluid and Ever-Changing

Similar to the use of queer, neuroqueer is often employed as an identity
term on these sites. This, however, is not to say they are necessarily
employing yet another identity category. Rather, neuroqueer as an identity
references an engagement in practices of neuroqueering that deconstruct
typical conceptions of identity. Many posters point to neuroqueer as a
politic, project, or doing in which one rejects able-heteroassimilation. In
a poem titled “Neuroqueer, or, how the birth of the clinic met my danger-
ous desire” Elizabeth Hassler posted on Neuroqueer.blogspot about the
fluid possibility of neuroqueer:
…my queerness is in lower-case,

and I came to it easily
once I stopped tasting my experience in rights-based alphabet soup
I fled
toward radical corners…
My neuro-queer
is in the silences, in the coy,
…and tides of disabled pleasures…
I am a crazy crippled girl
with desires,
and I am learning
to access intimacy and that neuro-queer
has so much potential for joy…
Hassler rejects the identity-based categorization of “Queer” or

LBGTQ+ identification, explaining that their queer is lower-case—a
reference to queer practice opposed to “Queer” identities. Neuroqueering
provides a flexibility that identity categories cannot. It opens up identity
by recognizing the malleability and fluidity of the experiences associ-
ated with various social locations and the meanings of those experi-
ences. As a “crazy crippled girl” Hassler recognizes that their desire is
“dangerous” (as evident by the title) because the sexual desires of crip-
pled people are viewed as deviant, dangerous because the societal depic-
tions of the desire (especially sexual) of “crazy girls” are often associated
with extreme violence, and especially dangerous because their crazy and
crippled self does not fit into typical homonormative categories associ-
ated with rights-based “Queer” identity communities. Their desire is
exceptionally dangerous because Hassler is finding joy in their experi-
ences of crazy, cripple, neuroqueer, and girlhood, which are particular
social locations that the popular imagination has deemed incapable of
experiencing joy.
Bloggers describe neuroqueer not as a new identity category for queer
neurodivergent people but as a doing of neuroqueer politic—a politic in
which those who experience exclusion from identity-based spaces can
participate without needing to present themselves as a prototypical mem-
ber. As such, neuroqueer engages in a deconstruction of identity catego-
ries. Furthermore, to engage in neuroqueering one does not need to be
neurodivergent and/or LGBTQ+. Grace stated that “Queer isn’t about
sex, it’s about not letting people erase you … it’s not *all and only* about
sex.” Rather, to identify with neuroqueer one just needs to reject assimila-
tion and hetero-cisnormativity (explored in depth in subsequent sections)
and understand that exclusion (especially based on identity) is antithetical

to neuroqueering. In discussing the “Queer part of neuroqueer,” a poster
wrote about the meaning of queerness, explaining that it is not about iden-
tity categorization and relates this to their experience as a disabled black
person. They wrote:
The meaning of Queerness as taken tends to mean not being heteronorma-

tive and not being cisnormative … But doesn’t disability and race run up
against heteronormativity and cisnormativity? I am a Black bisexual trans
woman. If I were to be a Black cis straight man, I am quite sure that heter-
onormativity and cisnormativity would be barriers for me anyway because
of … disability … How does my Blackness and the racialization of Black
masculinity conflict white supremacist forms of cisheteronormativity? … I
think that queer experiences that we have are all unique and situational and
should be respected, recognized and acknowledged.
This poster describes how queer is not about meeting specific identity
categories—it is about experiences of shared exclusion and a rejection of
hetero-cisnormativity. Compulsory heterosexuality, cisnormativity, white-
ness, and masculinity are constructed based on an able-bodied/minded
norm. By incorporating disability into intersectionality, Hirschmann
(2012) argues that we are able to see similarities in our differences.
Neuroqueering takes a similar approach as the blogger above describes, in
that heterocisnormativity coalesces through whiteness, masculinity, and
compulsory able-bodiedness and able-mindedness. Furthermore, neuro-
queer highlights how identity categorization is based on neurotypicality.
The data suggests that posters understand neuroqueer to have fluid
definitions. Often, the originators of the blogs described neuroqueer’s
fluid and multidefinitional foundation and urged against attempting to
establish “authoritative” definitions, as its fluidity holds power and, thus,
such definitions would be antithetical. Indeed, Nick Walker (originator)
explains that those who engage in neuroqueer “delight in subverting
definitions, concepts, and anything authoritative.” Members’ approaches
to the fluidity of neuroqueer is often extended to and inspired by their
approaches to identity. Neuroqueer allows for a contingent, fluid sense of
identity (rather than mere celebration of difference) and challenges iden-
tity categories that are frequently constructed around neurotypical norms.
Walker explains that neuroqueer is “actively choosing to embody and
express one’s neurodivergence (or refusing to suppress one’s embodi-
ment and expression of neurodivergence) in ways that “queer” one’s
performance of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, occupation, and/or other
aspects of one’s identity.” Feminist perspectives of intersectionality

could benefit from considering the fluidity of identity that a neuroqueer
approach provides.
Deconstructing typical identity categories and understanding the
malleability of the experiences associated with various social locations
does not mean ignoring experiences of privilege. Rather, in rejecting
exclusionary practices, those engaging in neuroqueer frequently recog-
nize their own privileged positionalities. It was common for posters to
recognize their own classed positions, gender/cis privilege, and white-
ness and/or how disability or LGBTQ+ communities perpetuated
whiteness. For instance, although there were only a handful of posters
who openly identified as people of color, conversations concerning race
still occurred frequently, specifically discussions about addressing
whiteness and centering anti-racism in neuroqueer projects. Hassler’s
poem critiques “Queer” community movements for perpetuating white-
ness and classism. They wrote, “I shy away from Queer. But I am queer,
nonetheless, even though our movement politics are so white and so
middle-class and imagined so exclusively on the dance floor.” In
another post titled “Centering anti-racism” Grace wrote about relating
to many experiences of oppressions and violences perpetuated against
marginalized people. Grace, however, makes a distinction between
what they experience as a white disabled queer person and the violence
Black people experience. They wrote:
Nothing about any of this [being queer and disabled] will ever make me
know what it is like to worry every day that someone will hatefully take it
upon themselves to murder my precious babies just because of the color of
their skin … It is unconscionable. But Black mothers know.
Grace continued by recognizing neuroqueer’s potential to center anti-

racism alongside anti-ableism and anti-heterosexism: “Deep, committed
solidarity, love and respect for racialized minorities. I need to learn to do
more. For me, it starts now, in this intersection, for all the world and eve-
rybody’s babies.”
Rejection of Identity Hierarchies and Assimilationism

As neuroqueering rejects exclusionary practices, anti-assimilationist
rhetoric was prevalent in the data. For posters, assimilation was not
worth the price of excluding others. One poster on Neuroqueer.blogspot
explained that, often, lesbian- and gay-focused social movement
organizations would exclude others in trying to achieve assimilation.

They recognized that there is privilege to being gay or lesbian, some-
one who could easily fit their sexuality “into the boxes” that these
identity movements construct. They explained that this privilege could
allow them to be the “kind of unfortunate person … one of these unctu-
ous HRC [Human Rights Campaign] slime balls who thought it neces-
sary to throw everyone else under the bus to assimilate.” A commenter
responded:
As for those being “thrown under the bus for assimilation” I think a hierar-
chy is followed with some more valued at other’s expenses with autistic
advocacy. I’ve heard it suggested that the ones represented in the protest for
“nothing about us without us” are the best and brightest advocates. I
wouldn’t describe it in the same way. That description honors a value sys-
tem … most, of what motivates the unfair discrimination, elitism, and
bigotry in the society being challenged is echoed in the very advocacy
movements presenting the challenge … not much can be gained from [a
movement] that supports the societies’ exclusive ideals which need chal-
lenging.
In breaking down identity categorization and recognizing the malleabil-

ity of social positionalities, neuroqueer contributes to the deconstruction of
hierarchies within identity communities. A central point of neuroqueering
is challenging hierarchies that develop within identity-based communities/
movements through inclusion and acceptance of all. Because identity com-
munities are based on typified norms, authors on Neuroqueer.blogspot
critique both disability and “queer” identity communities as exclusionary.
Hassler wrote:
I never pretended I had

a nondisabled body, online
or in my head. But I know
the disability rights community was never mine—
I still wont read
books of disability history that insist WE
on their covers. I never
made sense of my life
in cultural nationalism,
and so I shy away from Queer.
But I am queer, nonetheless . . .
Crazy (which some people who call themselves queer
have told me not to reclaim)

seems less distant from disability now.
In disidentifying with “WE,” which represents the typified and singular

narrative of disability communities, and rejecting the cultural nationalism
of Queer, Hassler uses anti-assimilationist discourse to point out the
exclusionary practices and invisibility of hierarchies within identity com-
munities.
As posters explain, it is important that neuroqueer challenges identity
movements because communities based on identities often support a
rhetoric that can be extraordinarily damaging to those who do not fit
typified notions of identity. This is evident when Michael Scott Monje Jr.
described destructive beliefs they found prevalent in autism communities
on neuroblogspot.com:
This is an idea that was born out of my own sense of discomfort, out of my
feeling that, in order to find support in an autism community, I needed to
“suck it up” and find solidarity with people who were holding on to some
attitude that I found destructive … dangerous … their effects could reach
beyond the person who held these destructive beliefs and harm … society.
Along with the push to be more tolerant of these views, there was a curious
kind of quiet around issues that were not child-centric—issues such as
sexuality, negotiating consent and power in adult situations, end-of-life
issues, and basic civil rights.
These destructive beliefs referenced frequently stem from the hegem-

onic and medicalized discourses that describe disabled (especially
autistic) people as asexual and childlike. Within a neuroqueer approach,
one cannot just identify with a counteridentification because these
counteridentity groups often reify binaries and construct identities
around solidarity that does not recognize the complexity and fluidity of
experience.
Rejection of Narratives of Cure

Posters resisted the idea that disabled bodyminds are passive objects on
which the medical or social activist agendas of others should be enacted.
A poster on Neuroqueer.blogspot, for example, described how disabled
individuals are often understood as being incapable of advocating for
themselves:
The rich unfortunate history has to do with people going About Us Without
Us. And when some of our own tried to say something about it, these “do-
gooders” seemed to express, to put it charitable, irritation. What they did
not seem to do was listen, at all. Though they said they were doing what-
ever they [the do-gooders] were doing for our own good.
It is because dominant medical model discourses permeate even “inclu-

sive” activist conceptions of disability that so often people “go about us
without us.” Medical model conceptions understand stigmatized
bodyminds as a problem that needs fixing, thus forcing them to conform
to normative expectations of behaviors and practices. Neuroqueer projects
reject the notion that deviant behaviors and bodyminds are an individual
problem but recognize that the problem is located within dominant dis-
courses that devalue bodily and mental diversity.
It is the prevalence of narratives of progression (indicative of medical
model conceptions) in dominant Western society and identity-based com-
munities that create the forced exclusion and oppression of disabled people
(specifically those who experience complex intersectional marginaliza-
tion). One poster on Neuroqueer.blogspot wrote how curative conceptions
of disability proliferate every aspect of society and uses Sesame Street as
an example of forced conformation: “For autistics, it will always be.
Broke. Because this is what Sesame Street has said to us. You can be fixed
…You are welcome on our street … if you learn to be someone else.” In
referencing Sesame Street, this poster describes how neurotypical behav-
iors/narratives of cure are subtly reinforced by media. In another post titled
“quiet hands,” a neuroqueer.blogspot member referenced a more obvert
reinforcing of normative behavior, describing consistently being chastised
by family and educators for stimming (the repetition of physical move-
ments or sounds) and instructed to sit still and “quiet” their hands.
Such reinforcement of normative behavior and cure can have severe
implications for disabled people. In prose style, another poster on
Neuroqueer.blogspot wrote about the exclusion she feels as someone who
is considered a “low functioning autistic” and how when she has shown
certain types of progress she became worried that her autistic identity
would be reduced to a past tense. She wrote:
she can recall the words they used to say around her. “independent” (she
will never be.) “intelligence” (there are no signs of.) “functioning” (she is
low.) “career” (she will never have.) “comprehend” (she does not.)
“severe.” “Finances” “Divorce.” “Competence.” … “willful.” “failed.”
“fault.” “Suicide.” “Depressed.” “Give up.” “lost.” “stolen.” Missing”

“empty.”
Hope (that she will become something they can be proud of.)
The words she hears now threaten to put her in past tense. Relegate her to
an Autistic yesterday. “Recovering.” “progress.” “Healing.” “Improving.”
“indistinguishable.” “typical.” “reduced.” “Acquired.” “Reclaimed.”
In recognizing the damage these types of discourses do, those engaging

in neuroqueer attempt to challenge these notions by disidentifying with
able-hetero assimilation that is always constructed through medicalized
conceptions of pathology. Walker clearly described this in a post on neu-
rocosmopolitanism.com:
When it comes to human neurodiversity, the dominant paradigm in the

world today is what I refer to as the pathology paradigm. The long-term
well-being and empowerment of autistics and members of other neurologi-
cal minority groups hinges upon our ability to create a paradigm shift—a
shift from the pathology paradigm to the neurodiversity paradigm. Such a
shift must happen internally, within the consciousness of individuals, and
must also be propagated in the cultures in which we live.
Neuroqueer bloggers cite medical model discourses of cure as a central

point of marginalization. Incorporating a neuroqueer approach to the
study of intersectionality would allow researchers to recognize how we
have employed similar discourses in our work and have conducted work
that is, or at the very least has been, complicit in ableism through compul-
sory able-bodiedness/able-mindedness.
Conclusion
Four themes emerged from narrative analysis of the blog sites included
in this project. In theme one (Shared Exclusion and Rejection of
Exclusionary Practices), posters describe that they have an affinity with
neuroqueer and each other through their shared exclusion from identity-
based (such as LGBTQ+, feminist, and disability) communities and rec-
ognize that this exclusion is evidence of the limitations of identity
categorization. The fluid and multi-definitional term neuroqueer provides
members of this community what identity-centered politics cannot:
inclusion and value of their unique intersectional selves that are not con-
fined to specific identity categories. In theme two (Neuroqueer is Fluid
and Ever-Changing), through practices of disidentification, neuroqueering
rejects any form of exclusion and binaries, thus contributing to the decon-
struction of typical understandings of identity categories. Employed as a
politic, neuroqueer emphasizes the malleability of the meanings and expe-
riences associated with various social locations. Theme three (Rejection
of Identity Hierarchies and Assimilation) incorporates neurodiversity (and
the fluidity it employs) into intersectionality and requires that we recog-
nize that identity categorization is often based on typified and neurotypi-
cal norms. Neuroqueer means disidentifying from exclusionary practices,
evident in the rejection of assimilation. Assimilationist goals are most
prevalent among marginalized groups and individuals who use hegemonic
discourses and hold typified identities within their constituent identity
groups (Egner 2018). Therefore, assimilation is only available to some
and is always based in neurotypicality. In theme four (Neuroqueer Rejects
Narratives of Cure), along with neurotypicality, popular conceptions of
disability (consistent in academia) are permeated with compulsory able-
bodiedness/able-mindedness in which disability is an obstacle to progress
only rectified by cure. Compulsory able-bodiedness/able-mindedness is
embedded even within groups attempting to be inclusive.
I began this project with three questions, answers to which are suggested
by these themes. What/who is neuroqueer(ing)? Neuroqueer disidentifica-
tion rejects exclusionary practices. By recognizing that the experiences
associated with various social locations and the meanings of those experi-
ences are fluid, it requires those engaging in it to deconstruct identity cat-
egorization and challenge hierarchies. Furthermore, because identity
categorization is based on typified constructions of personhood and those
typifications frequently assume neurotypicality, neuroqueer rejects assimi-
lationist rhetoric and challenges dominant discourses that privilege some
bodyminds over others and/or perpetuate oppressive curative narratives.
What does neuroqueer disidentification mean in relation to existing
gender, sexuality, and disability theory? Neuroqueer disidentification
urges social researchers to consider how we have conceptualized identity
in relation to norms of bodily and mental neurotypicality, and how,
through such conceptualizations, we subtly or overtly reinforce normative
expectations of cure and thus disenfranchise neurodivergent people. We
cannot assume to know anything about the experiences and meanings of
various social locations if we do not take up neurodivergency in our
examinations. Queer theory has challenged some typical notions of gen-
der but is still built upon neurotypical gender performance. Neuroqueer
suggests that we, as gender scholars, recognize what it means to identify

with a particular gender, and the way gender socialization is taken up does
not just vary based on gender identity, sexuality, and sexual orientation
but also varies by neurology. The data from these blogs suggest that neu-
rodivergent people doing gender, or any identity based in performance for
that matter, cannot be held to and evaluated on neurotypical norms of
bodily and mental performance. As scholars, when we construct our theo-
retical and empirical projects, we must attend to neurodiversity, especially
when our work does not explicitly deal with neurodivergency or we risk
presuming neurotypicality. In order to consider neurodiversity, we have to
reconfigure constructions of identity to include neuroqueer fluidity.
What is neuroqueer’s value for feminist, sociological knowledge projects
such as intersectionality scholarship? Bringing disability into intersectional-
ity reconfigures common conceptualizations of intersectionality (Erevelles
and Minear 2010). Intersectionality as a theoretical tool has been used to
point out and understand differences. Introducing disability into intersection-
ality should not simply add another identity category into our analysis. As
Hirschmann (2012) argues, in incorporating a disability-focused approach
we need to recognize similarities in the experience of difference, thus recon-
ceptualizing intersectionality. In considering neurodivergency, neuroqueer-
ing further obscures delineations of identity categories, “cripping” how we
have come to understand intersectionality. The neuroqueer perspective pre-
sented by these bloggers challenges the usefulness of bounded categories,
even in the context of intersectionality. We are still a long way from a
dynamic theoretical perspective on intersectionality in which issues of race,
gender, sexuality, disability, neurodiversity, and other aspects of human dif-
ference can be thoroughly, and simultaneously, considered, instead of being
broken into discrete categories of oppressive experience. The work of these
bloggers challenges us to push the limits of identity-based theoretical and
activist perspectives in ways that might move us forward in that direction.
The data from these blogs extends our theoretical understanding of
intersectionality by providing an example of how we may conceptualize
identity without delineated borders. Neuroqueering provides an approach
to intersectionality that engages with a diversity of bodyminds, while
considering practices of able-bodiedness/able-mindedness. Neuroqueer
fluidity rejects typified conceptions of identity, inviting consideration of
how whiteness, able-bodiedness/able-mindedness, compulsory hetero-
sexuality and cisism coalesce through each other. The common ways to
approach intersectional identity by parsing out difference becomes diffi-
cult to conceptualize when considering neurodivergency. Because of its
conception of fluidity, a neuroqueer intersectionality takes up Hirschmann’s

(2012) approach of unifying based on the experience of difference while
simultaneously recognizing privileged positionalities.
Limitations and Considerations for Future Work

This article focused on the emerging term neuroqueer by highlighting
the work present on blog spaces but does not consider other approaches
to neurodiversity. Much can be gained by engaging with multiple
approaches. Neuroqueering should be further conceptualized by attend-
ing to neurodivergency considering other scholarships and social media
platforms like Twitter (particularly the use of hashtags like #actuallyau-
tistic). It is especially important to attend to voices of neurodivergent
people of color, as the majority of these bloggers self-identified as white
or did not self-identify at all. As whiteness often goes unmarked, for
neuroqueer to be successful in rejecting all exclusionary practices it is
imperative that future neuroqueer work engage with issues of race, so as
not to perpetuate whiteness.
Furthermore, there were many themes from blogs that could not be
attended to in this article such as the inaccessibility of academic spaces.
Future work should consider issues of academic gatekeeping as it applies
to disability and neurodivergency lest we risk reifying the exclusionary
structures neuroqueer seeks to dismantle. Posters engaged in conversations
imagining possibilities for accessibility of language and academia through
centering disability. Additionally, academic audiences should engage with
the work that scholars and activists on these blogs are producing in their
own right (not just the academics who reference these blogs). In other
words, scholars attending to intersectionality, able-mindedness, and/or
neuroqueer should take up the work of Grace, Yergeau, Monje Jr., Walker,
and blog commentators in conceptualizing their projects.
Notes
1. Inspired by O’Toole (2015) and Price (2015), I use “bodyminds” to mean

bodies and minds and as a rejection of the Cartesian mind/body split that posits
bodies versus minds.
2. Ableism refers to a system of oppression (similar to racism, sexism, or het-
erosexism) where some bodyminds are deemed normal and others abject. It con-
tributes to individual and institutional levels of disability discrimination (Berger
2013). Compulsory able-bodiedness refers to cultural understandings that support
ableism through constructing disability in terms of imperfection and opposition to
able-bodied identity. Able-bodiedness appears as normalcy, yet it is an imitation

that can never be achieved (similar to Butler’s ([1990] 2006) conception of gen-
der); this normalcy is actually a compulsion. Compulsory able-bodiedness is
interwoven with compulsory heterosexuality (see McRuer 2013)
References
Annamma, Subini, David Connor, and Beth Ferri. 2013. Dis/ability critical race
studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race
Ethnicity and Education 16 (1): 1-31.
Asch, Adrienne. 2001. Critical race theory, feminism, and disability: Reflections
on social justice and personal identity. Ohio State Law Journal 62:391.
Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2003. The essential difference: The truth about the male
and female brain. New York: Basic Books
Berger, Ronald. 2013. Introducing disability studies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Berube, Micheal. 1996. Life as we know it: A father, a family, and an exceptional
child. New York: Vintage.
Bumiller, Kristin. 2008. Quirky citizens: Autism, gender, and reimagining disabil-
ity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33 (4): 967-91.
Butler, Judith. (1990) 2006. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of
identity. New York: Routledge.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2002. Stories and silences: Disclosures and self in chronic ill-
ness. Qualitative Inquiry 8 (3): 302-28.
Cheng, Ryu. 2009. Sociological theories of disability, gender, and sexuality: A
review of the literature. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment
19 (1): 112-22.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6):
1241-99.
Egner, Justine. 2017. A messy trajectory: From medical sociology to crip theory. In
Sociology looking at disability: What did we know and when did we know it, edited
by Sara Green and Sharon Barnartt. Bingly UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Egner, Justine. 2018. Hegemonic or queer? A comparative analysis of five
LGBTQIA/disability intersectional social movement organizations. Humanity
& Society doi:0160597618782582
Erevelles, Nirmala, and Andrea Minear. 2010. Unspeakable offenses: Untangling
race and disability in discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary &
Cultural Disability Studies 4(2): 127-45.
Erevelles, Nirmala. 2014. Thinking with disability studies. Disability Studies
Quarterly 34 (2): sec. 1.
Falek, Joshua. 2016. Review of Monje, Defiant. Canadian Journal of Disability
Studies 5 (3): 142-47.
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2005. Feminist disability studies. Signs 30 (2):

1557-87.
Gerschick, Thomas J. 2000 Toward a theory of disability and gender. Signs 25
(4): 1263-68.
Hevey, David. 1993. From self-love to the picket line: Strategies for change in
disability representation. Disability, Handicap & Society 8 (4): 423-29.
Hine, Christine. 2000. Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Hirschmann, Nancy. 2012. Disability as a new frontier for feminist intersectional-
ity research. Politics & Gender 8 (3): 396-405.
Kafer, Alison. 2013. Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kafer, Alison. 2016. Un/safe disclosures: Scenes of disability and trauma. Journal
of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 10 (1): 1-20.
Loseke, Donileen. 2012. The empirical analysis of formula stories. In Varieties of
narrative analysis, edited by James Holstein and Jay Gubrium. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Maloney, Patricia. 2013. Online networks and emotional energy. Information,
Communication & Society 16 (1): 105-24.
McRuer, Robert. 2006. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability.
New York: New York University Press.
McRuer, Robert. 2013. Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled exis-
tence. In The disability studies reader, 4th ed., edited by Lennard Davis. New
York: Routledge.
McWade, Brigit, Damian Milton, and Peter Beresford. 2015. Mad studies and
neurodiversity: A dialogue. Disability & Society 30 (2): 305-9.
Milton, Damian E. M. 2017. Zen and the art of auto-ethnography: A tribute to
Robert M. Pirsig. Disability & Society 32 (10): 1-6.
Munoz, Jose Esteban. 1999. The white to be angry: Vaginal Crème Davis’s terror-
ist drag. In Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of poli-
tics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
O’Toole, Corbett. 2015. Fading scars: My queer disability history. Fort Worth,
TX: Autonomous Press.
Price, Margaret. 2015. The bodymind problem and the possibilities of pain. Hypa-
tia 30 (1): 268-84.
Richter, Zachary A. 2017. Melting down the family unit: A neuroqueer critique
of table-readiness. In Disabling domesticity, edited by Michael Rembis. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Samuels, Ellen. 2003. My body, my closet: Invisible disability and the limits of
coming-out discourse. GLQ 9 (1/2): 233-55.
Sandahl, Carrie. 2003. Queering the crip or cripping the queer? Intersections of
queer and crip identities in solo autobiographical performance. GLQ 9 (1/2):
24-56.
Schalk, Sami. 2013. Coming to claim crip: Disidentification with/in disability studies.
Disability Studies Quarterly 33(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i2.3705.
van Schalkwyk, Gerrit I., Katherine Klingensmith, and Fred R. Volkmar. 2015.
Gender identity and autism spectrum disorders. The Yale Journal of Biology
and Medicine 88 (1): 81.
Silberman, Steve. 2017. Neurodiversity rewires conventional thinking about
brains. In Beginning with disability, edited by Lennard J. Davis. New York:
Routledge.
Strand, Lauren. 2017. Charting relations between intersectionality theory and the
neurodiversity paradigm. Disability Studies Quarterly 37 (2): sec. 2.
Tevis, Tenisha L., and Jacalyn M. Griffen. 2014. Absent voices: Intersectionality
and first-generation college students with disabilities. Journal of Progressive
Policy & Practice 2 (3): 239.
Tiefer, Lenore. 1996. The medicalization of sexuality: Conceptual, normative,
and professional issues. Annual Review of Sex Research 7 (1): 252-82.
Weeks, Jeffery. 1998. The Sexual Citizen. Theory, Culture & Society 15:35-52.
West, Candice, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society
1 (2): 125-51.
Justine E. Egner is an assistant professor of sociology at the University

of Wisconsin La Crosse. Her work explores how narratives of medicaliza-
tion contribute to the construction of marginalized identity. Her current
research examines intersectional invisibility experienced by LGBTQ+
disabled people.

2019 - Neuroqueer Disidentification - Egner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 - Neuroqueer Disidentification - Egner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

803284

“The Disability Rights Community

Keywords: neuroqueer; intersectionality; feminist disability studies; queer; neurodiver-

D rawing from relevant contemporary blog data, this article is an exam-

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol 33 No. 1, February, 2019 123­–147

ists, and members of online neuroqueer communities that rejects both

Rationale for Neuroqueering Intersectionality

alongside bodily diversity to challenge common presumptions of gender

Broader Contexts of the Intersections of Disability, Gender, and

experience negative “assumptions about their identities and abilities”

LGBTQ+ and Disability

Neuroqueerness in the Literature

Feminist Disability Studies and The Development

Critical and feminist disability studies are frequently constructed in

practices of normalizing/denormalizing identities. Disabled identities

subversive tactics. The crip conception is one of valuing disability to the

Able-Mindedness: A Missing Piece

Intersectionality and Disability

theory tells me that as a professional, straight, white woman, for

Counteridentification may denounce dominant discourses, but such oppo-

Drawing on feminist disability research methodology (Garland-

Sites were chosen based on predetermined criteria, including being

The blogs reveal that neuroqueering is a cripping project in disiden-

Shared Exclusion and Rejection of Exclusionary Practices

O’Toole described a neuroqueer practice that attempts to point out

Neuroqueer Is Fluid and Ever-Changing

…my queerness is in lower-case,

Hassler rejects the identity-based categorization of “Queer” or

and understand that exclusion (especially based on identity) is antithetical

The meaning of Queerness as taken tends to mean not being heteronorma-

aspects of one’s identity.” Feminist perspectives of intersectionality

Grace continued by recognizing neuroqueer’s potential to center anti-

Rejection of Identity Hierarchies and Assimilationism

organizations would exclude others in trying to achieve assimilation.

In breaking down identity categorization and recognizing the malleabil-

I never pretended I had

have told me not to reclaim)

In disidentifying with “WE,” which represents the typified and singular

These destructive beliefs referenced frequently stem from the hegem-

Rejection of Narratives of Cure

It is because dominant medical model discourses permeate even “inclu-

“fault.” “Suicide.” “Depressed.” “Give up.” “lost.” “stolen.” Missing”

In recognizing the damage these types of discourses do, those engaging

When it comes to human neurodiversity, the dominant paradigm in the

Neuroqueer bloggers cite medical model discourses of cure as a central

suggests that we, as gender scholars, recognize what it means to identify

conception of fluidity, a neuroqueer intersectionality takes up Hirschmann’s

Limitations and Considerations for Future Work

1. Inspired by O’Toole (2015) and Price (2015), I use “bodyminds” to mean

able-bodied identity. Able-bodiedness appears as normalcy, yet it is an imitation

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2005. Feminist disability studies. Signs 30 (2):

Justine E. Egner is an assistant professor of sociology at the University

You might also like

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol 33 No. 1, February, 2019 123–147