As a child, I did not yet understand that diagnostic criteria are not inherently descriptions of weakness. Some professionals, even years ago recognised them as differences rather than deficits. But even in my family, when I was diagnosed as a childas well as another family member, they considered our different expressions of autism, and I could hear my family members telling the doctor I did not “look autistic” and even teacher expressing “what a shame” it was, as if I was doomed! My family was afraid I would be marginalised or mistreated. We heard stories of families attempting exorcisms for autistic children, or abandoning them due to the anticipated cost of support in different countries. These narratives linger in my mind . Masking became a way of protecting myself. I chose not to disclose my neurodivergence and I also learned to be cautious about naming my country of origin. The power dynamics were evident. Interestingly, the individuals expressing biased comments often held senior roles, at least more senior than me. Challenging them did not simply carry professional risk; it also felt destabilising in the moment. It is important to say that I was not personally distressed by every comment that was made. Some remarks did not wound me in the way others might expect. However, colleagues who cared about me were understandably concerned. After witnessing a supervisor behave multiple times in a way they perceived as bullying, they raised it formally. What followed was a structured process: meetings, mediation, documentation, formal steps. Although well intentioned, the process itself became overwhelming. The volume of interaction, the administrative demands, and the emotional intensity of it all were far more difficult for me than the original incident. I am not suggesting that inappropriate behaviour should be ignored. Rather, I am suggesting that responses should be thoughtful and tailored. There is often an assumption about what ought to make someone “upset” and procedures can be activated on that basis. Yet for me, the standardised process created more harm than the initial event. If behaviour is inappropriate, it should be addressed with the person doing it and supporting those that are the target. However, it should be addressed in a way that considers the person’s neurocognitive profile, their preferences, and what would genuinely support them, especially when we are not the ones creating the challenges. Policies are important, however, they should not be followed blindly that they lose sight of the individual they are meant to protect. Adaptation, flexibility, and curiosity about what actually helps are essential. Without that, well-meaning systems can unintentionally replicate the very harm they are trying to prevent. 9
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator