Correcting Myths about the Provenance of Neurodiversity

A number of myths have been circulating about the provenance of Neurodiversity and my role in it.

Some are either

1. positive,
2. negative
3. uninformed
4. libellous.

Positive Myths

While I am grateful that my work is appreciated, some of the myths that circulate are inflated, and I do try to set the record straight when I encounter them.

The most common is the assumption that I am “Dr Singer”. I do not hold a PhD. I hold a BA (Hons) in Social Science, completed in 1998 as a mature‑age student at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). 

My preferred title is: Judy Singer, BA (Hons), University of Technology Sydney (UTS), 1998.

I add that since time immemorial - when I reckon women got tired of being treated like pack animals and invented the wheel - (not joking, it's plausible!) - our motivation has rarely been simply to climb the greasy pole of academic prestige.

That's until what I consider to be the "Academic Arms Race" - when the Hoi Polloi (Greek: meaning "The Common People", and not the "Elites", which is what it sound like.  were admitted to Higher Education, and the Upper Crust need to create higher and higher ranks to distinguish themselves. 

NB: As ChatGPT summarizes it, this is a classic example of sociology's concept of "Distinction: the process by which individuals use cultural preferences and lifestyles to establish social hierarchy and justify inequality."

I reckon for most of us, our primary motive was not fame, but the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of society. But if  "Fame" is the name of the game, women better be on the list!  

How to fix Positive Myths

Make sure they are from reputable sources, not well-meaning fans. 

My preferred title is:

Judy Singer, BA (Hons), University of Technology Sydney (UTS), 1998.

Negative Myths: 

These may be 

• Innocent mistakes
• Deliberate misinformation aka Disinformation aka Defamation?

Innocent mistakes can obviously be made by anyone - e.g the general public or experts from different fields of expertise. Some myths, whether positive or negative,  may arise innocently from misunderstandings or misinformation, which are hardly lacking in the Wild West that is often social media.

Deliberate Disinformation comes from the dark side - e.g. by trolls, "back-fence" gossips and unscrupulous competitors. But such purveyors of deliberate disinformation should not be let off too easily, because the same social media can be used to check facts. I will get to to unscrupulous competitors below.

A Word to the Wise:

Do NOT rely on Wikipedia!

It is open slather for amateurs who have no idea what they're talking about. The moderators have no accountability whatsoever. Apart from amateurs, Wikipedia is a stalking ground for sensationalists, trolls, perhaps jealous rivals - often hiding behind their agents or fake IDs. 

Especially do not use Wikipedia if you wish to discover/relay information about any living person, (even if they have passed on, as I hope I won't do for a while yet, despite being in my 8th decade). My biography is constantly being corrupted by any of the above miscreants. I've given up trying to correct the record. 

In the idealistic 60s, my generation, including myself, believed that truth would win out without regulation, and that people were "inherently good" unless society messed them up. It used to be called "Anarchism" by the Left-wing camp. Ir's exactly the same folly as the political Right's  "Free Market Capitalism" which has also failed the people on the wrong end of the money stick. 

Wikipedia is living proof that Anarchism is a dead end. The reality is that legal systems were forced to evolve, and will continue to do so. 

In the meantime

"Who the hell has been corrupting my Wikipedia entries?"

1. Amateurs with boundless self-confidence but without the chops

                    2. Bad faith actors or their agents

Whatever you believe, everytime I look at the relevant entries, my purported "biography" is absolutely tripe. This has been going on for two decades! I gave up trying to fix it with facts and documentation years go but the the trolls just go straight back in there!   

Neurodiversity "Experts"

Have you noticed that due to lack of regulation, anyone can up and proclaim themselves to be a "Neurodiversity Expert"?

Some of these putative "experts" will be from different fields of expertise that shape their viewpoints: Again, this is especially dangerous if the come from the highly respected Psycho-Medical professions. It's a case of "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", readily applicable as:

"When all you have is a stethoscope, everything looks like a symptom".

I find that some people understand the concept of Neurodiversity intuitively, especially that it is not a medical diagnosis, but names the simple fact that no two human mind-bodies or nervous systems can ever be alike. "Why not?" you may ask..

It is because even if genes are identical, human minds are made not just of "meat" but recorded experience. The instant even 2 identical twins look even at the exact spot it can never be the exact same experience, even if so minutely because of their different angles of view. 

If you see the medical view, beware. Case in point: See my article How Not to Define Neurodiversity my critque of a book authored by a distinguished and obviously well-intentioned psycho-medical professional, Dr Lawrence Fung. 

Deliberate Misinformation aka. Disinformation

As made by Academics:

Innocence is no excuse in academia: It can only be incompetence at best, and competitive defamation at worst. 

The chief purveyors of the disinformation that has destroyed my reputation and livelihood, are at the top of the tree of Neurodiversity experts, - albeit having arrived on the scene more than 20 years (!) after my original publication. They are:

Dr. Robert Chapman, Prof. Nick Walker and their acolytes

This collective of  6 academic contenders, despite their high combined qualifications, have not been the least bit ashamed to sign off on this pack of easily rebutted and blatantly false allegations.

If this learned collective have deliberately chosen not to use their professional research skills to check their "facts" lest they find unwelcome truths, they are not worthy of their titles. That failure alone should merit official censure by their institutions. 

For just one obvious example, this learned collective might have reasonably guessed that I would possess original documents.  Which I naturally do.     

The Verifiable Facts

An abridged version of my work sharing the coinage and its explanation, was submitted in September 1998 to the highly regarded academic publisher, Open University Press, UK, and published as chapter in an an academic book series "Disability Discourse " in early 1999. It is now under the imprimatur of McGraw Hill and readily available as a book chapter entitled 

"Why can't you be normal for once in your life?":

From a problem with no name to a new category of difference 

Had my highly qualified academic critics exercised even the most basic professional obligation to check primary sources, they would have readily located this original published work at the link above, through any standard search engine/ Given the combined academic expertise of the two lead authors — and possibly of their acolytes — such an omission can only be attributed to poor research at best, or deliberate disinformation at worst. Their collective level of qualification makes the former difficult to credit; which leaves the latter - self-serving disinformation. And it is indefensible.

Yet a major global academic publisher, Sage Publications, appears to have given this scholarly clique carte blanche to publish whatever they pleased in one of its journals, Sage Journals: Autism. While this may have seemed understandable at the time based on the reputational standing of these academics, it became indefensible when the same publisher ignored my detailed rebuttal and instead deployed its in‑house legal team to send me a rather alarming ‘back off’ warning.

What does this say about the integrity of both academia and the academic publishing industry?

This collective have not been the least bit ashamed to sign off on their "open letter" despite clearly failing to use their professional research skills to check the facts. That failure alone should be worth notice by their affiliated institutions. 

For just one example, Chapman et al might have reasonably guessed that I would possess original documents. Which, of course, I do. My work was submitted in 1998 to a highly regarded academic publisher, then the Open University Press, UK, and submitted at the same time as a book chapter, still readily available at McGraw Hill.

It would not have been rocket science for these highly qualified academics to discover this via the simplest of search engines, had they made the slightest attempt to do so. 

Despite the evidence I have provided, Chapman et al. have succeeded in persuading the highly regarded Sage Journals to publish a rather self‑serving critique of my work, grounded largely in the selective and prejudiced recollections of a single non‑academic source, whose motives can only be guessed at. His stance appears driven less by any understanding of scholarly verification than by a ‘What about me?’ impulse

At the very best, the allegations of these contenders may stem from  Confirmation Bias, a fancy name for "Wishful Thinking". But for academics and researchers of the  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 a couple of leading feminist scholars,  — who might well be appalled to find their work misappropriated in this way.

Remember the famous case of  Watson and Crick ripping off Rosalinnd Franklin's work on DNA ? 

I'm not about to play Franklin to Walker's and Chapman's allegations. 

Did I mention the long established histories of Males ripping off Female inventions? And of the Northern Hemisphere colonising and ripping off the South?

 My situation is a case in point.  

Uninformed or Innocent Myths

Some myths, whether positive or negative,  may arise innocently from misunderstandings or misinformation, which are hardly lacking on the Wild West  that is often social media.

And then there is deliberate disinformation - by trolls, "back-fence" gossips and unscrupulous competitors. But such purveyors of deliberate disinform should not be let off too easily, because the same social media can be used to check facts. 

If you wish to discover/relay information about any living person, (and even if they have passed on, as I hope I won't do for a while yet, despite being in my 8th decade) 

 Do NOT use Wikipedia!

-------------------------------------

 * 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!