A number of myths have been circulating about the provenance of Neurodiversity and my role in it.
Some are either
- positive,
- negative, or
- libellous.
Positive Myths
While I am grateful that my work is appreciated, inevitably some of these myths are inflated and I do try to set the record straight when I come across them.
The most common myth is calling me "Dr Singer". I do not hold a PhD. I have a BA (Hons) Sociology. Need I add that since the beginning of time when women invented the wheel, few have been motivated by climbing up the greasy pole to academic glory. That was until the academic arms race, when the hoi polloi (the masses) were admitted to higher education, and higher and higher ranks had to be devised..
Innocent myths
Some myths, whether positive or negative, of course, may arise innocently from misunderstandings or misinformation, which are hardly lacking on the Wild West of social media. But their story-tellers should not be let off too easily, because the same social media can be used to check facts.Negative Myths
But some of the negative myths or allegations - to call them by their more contemporary names - appear to be specifically crafted as disinformation by a small coterie of my academic rivals, Chapman, Walker et al. This collective of detractors have not been the least bit ashamed to sign off on them despite failing to use their professional research skills to check the facts. That failure alone should merit official censure by their institutions.
For just one example, these contenders might have reasonably guessed that I would possess original documents, which I do. My work was submitted in 1998 to a highly regarded academic publisher, then the Open University Press, UK, and published as a book chapter, now still available at McGraw Hill. It would readily have been found via search engines, had my detractors had the integrity to make the slightest attempt. .
Chapman, Walker et al have succeeded in getting a major academic journal, Sage Journals, to publish a take-down of my work, based primarily on the selective "memories" of a single non-academic source, whose motives can only be guessed at. I am not giving any of these people oxygen. You can find the said article easily with any search engine. I only ask that you read their allegations with a huge grain of salt, despite their impeccably formatted Academese.
At best, the allegations of these contenders may stem from Confirmation Bias, a fancy name for "wishful thinking". But for academics and researchers of their calibre that is no excuse for poor, self‑serving research built on cherry‑picked fake ‘evidence’ drawn from non‑academic social‑media scuttlebutt.
To add insult to injury, these two male* scholars have attempted to cloak their self‑interest by selectively quoting leading feminist scholars — who might well be appalled to find their work appropriated in this way.
Remember Rosalind Franklin ripped off by Watson and Crick? I'm not about to play Rosalind to Walker's and Chapman's allegations.
-------------------------------------
* Male judging by their names and appearance. So, what else is new in the history of credit for scholarship? Although Walker seems to change his pronouns to suit the times, at least the last time I looked, he was a "he, him, his". His attacks on me began with his accusation that I 'misgendered' him while he was going through his "she, her" phase. How was I to know... I can't keep up with everything..?
