The humanistic rebrand proposal
A preprint published last month in SciELO Preprints proposes renaming ADHD as “Diverse Human Attention Trajectories” and ASD as “Authentic Spectrum of Diversity.” Author Gracio Marinho Sobral Santos argues that clinical terminology frames neurodivergent individuals through deficit-oriented language, producing stigma rather than understanding.
The paper positions humanistic language as ethical responsibility. Naming becomes an act of care. Terms like disorder, deficit, and “hyperactivity” reduce complex cognitive experiences to categories of dysfunction, influencing educational practices, clinical approaches, and public policy.
The proposed alternatives emphasise dignity, identity, and cognitive plurality. ADHD reframed as diverse attentional trajectories shifts emphasis from correction to understanding. Autism reframed as authentic spectrum affirms legitimacy of autistic ways of being, moving from pathology to identity.
The conclusion states: “More important than classifying a mind is listening to it. More important than correcting behaviour is understanding its origin. More important than naming a person is recognising their dignity.”
A lovely sentiment.
And, all of the above: I do not fundamentally disagree with. However, it remains completely disconnected from how diagnostic systems actually operate.
Why deficit language does produce real harm
Before I begin dismantling the proposal’s naivety, I must acknowledge what it gets right: clinical terminology does indeed produce measurable harm.
Deficit-based framing affects how neurodivergent individuals are perceived and how they perceive themselves. Labels carry weight beyond clinical settings. A child diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder internalises different messages than one described as having diverse attentional rhythms. The former suggests something missing. The latter suggests natural variation.
Research documents that diagnostic labels influence teacher expectations, peer relationships, family dynamics, and “self-esteem”. Once labelled disordered, behaviours previously interpreted neutrally become symptoms. The same fidgeting that made a child “energetic” before diagnosis becomes “hyperactivity” after. The same focused interest that made them “dedicated” becomes “obsessive” and a mere manifestation of “hyperfocus”.
This isn’t theoretical. It’s documented across educational psychology literature. Diagnostic labels create interpretive frameworks that shape how all subsequent behaviour gets understood.
What Santos’ paper correctly identifies, absolutely to his credit, is that language is not neutral. Words used to describe cognitive differences influence access to support, family acceptance, and social belonging. Renaming could theoretically reduce stigma, promote dignity, strengthen relational bonds, and of course, more.
Could — that’s the keyword there.
That is, if language existed in a vacuum separate from the systems that require deficit terminology to function. But the truth is, it doesn’t.
The neurodivergent treatment industrial complex requires disorder terminology and deficit models — whether we like it, or not
I coined this term in my book, and it’s important here. As this is where the humanistic rebrand encounters structural reality: every system that gates access to support depends on deficit-based diagnosis.
Schools don’t receive additional funding for students with “diverse attentional trajectories.”
They receive it for students diagnosed with disorders. The Education, Health and Care Plan process in the UK requires documented impairment affecting daily functioning. Insurance companies don’t cover therapy for “authentic cognitive ecologies.” They cover treatment for recognised disorders.
The DSM-5 and ICD-11 aren’t arbitrary classification systems. They’re gatekeeping mechanisms that determine who qualifies for support and who doesn’t. Changing the language without changing the systems means one of two outcomes: either the new terminology gets rejected because it can’t unlock resources, or it gets adopted and immediately becomes just as stigmatising as the old terminology because it still functions as a deficit marker.
Consider what happens if schools tomorrow started using “Diverse Human Attention Trajectories” instead of ADHD (“No! It’s now DHAT”). Parents still need documentation proving their child meets diagnostic criteria to access support. Teachers still identify which students “have it” and which don’t. The paperwork still requires evidence of impairment. The label still marks certain students as different, requiring intervention to help them fit into the round holes of institutional society.
So if we change the terminology, but the function remains — why would we expect the stigma to dissipate?
I’m not speculating here — this is pattern recognition from decades of our attempted linguistic reforms in disability services, and more. “Mental retardation” became “intellectual disability” which became “learning disability.” Each shift was presented as progress. Each new term initially felt more respectful, as they were. But the facts are: each eventually accumulate the same stigma as its predecessor because the underlying dynamic — labelling people as deficient to justify and monetise the access to support — remained unchanged.
Our problem is not any specific words (and this is where all worlds, despite none being neutral, are neutralised — they’re not, and never are, the problems, they’re just words). Our problem is two fold: 1) the requirement that certain humans must be classified as disordered to receive accommodation in systems designed without them in mind; and 2) that an industrially standardised round hole exists in the first place, and those presenting incompatibility with it must be treated to appropriate normalcy to it, for it.
The humanistic rebrand aims to treat the surface while ignoring the roots. Deficit language exists because deficit frameworks are structurally necessary for resource allocation in systems built around neurotypical baselines. You can’t fix stigma by changing terminology when the stigma is produced by the gatekeeping function itself.
The implementation barriers that nobody addresses
Even if we ignore the gatekeeping function of diagnostic terminology, the practical barriers to implementing humanistic language render the proposal effectively meaningless.
Who exactly will adopt “Diverse Human Attention Trajectories”? Do we think it’s the GPs who have 10 minutes per appointment, and already claim ineptitude (and, somehow, plausible deniability) regarding neurodivergent treatment? Or is it the teachers that are managing 30 students in one room in hourly slots, all with varying needs while having zero training in basic neuroscience? Or perhaps it’s the parents that are trapped into navigating compulsory school systems that already resist providing basic support?
The paper acknowledges these stakeholders — educators, clinicians, and families — but provides zero implementation strategy. It assumes goodwill and awareness will drive adoption, and lead to improved outcomes.
This reveals profound systems naivety about how institutional change actually occurs.
Clinical terminology persists not because doctors lack compassion but because standardisation enables economic scalability and communication across contexts. When a paediatrician refers a child to an educational psychologist who then coordinates with a speech therapist and occupational therapist, they need shared language. “ADHD” communicates specific information about likely presentations, evidence-based interventions, and monitoring requirements. Though this doesn’t explain why GPs refuse to participate in this pre-existing “shared language” I’m speaking of, instead choosing to hold their hands up and refer (their!) patients to private pathways. But that’s a different conversation entirely.
“Diverse Human Attention Trajectories” communicates nothing actionable. It’s philosophically appealing, but operationally useless.
Educational systems face similar constraints. A SENCO coordinating support for 200 students needs precise categories to allocate limited resources. Humanistic language doesn’t help them decide who receives one-to-one support versus small group interventions versus classroom accommodations. It doesn’t interface with the legal frameworks governing special educational needs provision.
The implementation question isn’t “Should we use more respectful language?” It’s “How do we restructure resource allocation so support doesn’t require deficit classification?” That question demands systemic redesign, not linguistic substitution.
And systemic redesign requires admitting that current structures are fundamentally incompatible with the humans they claim to serve, neurodivergent or not. Which institutions don’t do voluntarily.
The paper suggests that families experience “less guilt and more connection when terminology affirms rather than diminishes.” Yep, sound. I wouldn’t argue with that. But it assumes families have the luxury of choosing their terminology. In practice, parents use whatever language unlocks support for their children. If “disordered” gets them an EHCP and “diverse” doesn’t, they’ll use “disordered.”
The system determines the language, not the other way round.
This is the same trap as workplace accommodations positioning individual adjustments as solutions while avoiding the reality of systemic incompatibility and the actual requirement for structural change. It’s the typical playbook: rebrand the language, celebrate the awareness., but skip the redesign. It’s just the accommodation con but in linguistic form.
Santos writes that “naming is a form of care.” Okay. But care, unfortunately, isn’t just about how something sounds, and how it makes people feel. It’s about what it unlocks (inexorably tied to the system). And deficit terminology, however ugly, currently unlocks resources that humanistic alternatives cannot.
Which means the real question isn’t whether “Diverse Human Attention Trajectories” sounds better than ADHD. It’s whether we’re willing to build systems where neither term is necessary because support is universal rather than conditional on proving individual inadequacy regarding the round hole.
The paper concludes: “Reframing ADHD and ASD through humanistic terminology expands the ethical horizon of how society understands cognitive diversity.”
Does it? Or does it let institutions continue operating deficit-based gatekeeping while feeling progressive about terminology? As they’d quickly change the language they enforce (a dangerous path already) and put some new posters up, but the systemic reality will remain.
Which is why renaming without any actual redesign is just performance.
It’s the diversity initiative that changes nothing. The awareness campaign that avoids implementation. The progressive gesture that maintains the status quo.
If you want to reduce stigma, don’t rebrand the labels. Eliminate the requirement that humans must be classified as deficient to receive support in the first place, or eliminate the institutional incompatibilities that perpetuate the round hole > square pegs > neurodivergent treatment industrial complex in the first place.
Build systems that accommodate natural human variation as baseline rather than exceptional adjustment. Design education around diverse attention patterns rather than punishing deviation from artificial standards. Structure workplaces for different sensory processing needs rather than treating open-plan offices and fluorescent lighting as neutral default.
But that’s not linguistic reform — that’s structural reform, and that’s a different game entirely, one requiring the structures to willingly participate in it.
And it requires admitting that the systems themselves — not the terminology describing people who can’t function within them — are what’s actually disordered. Which the structures will not do.
The humanistic rebrand proposes compassionate language for people failed by incompatible systems. What’s needed is compatible systems that don’t require deficit classification in the first place.
One is easier than the other. But only one of them actually works. And guess which one we keep choosing?
Citations
SciELO Preprints — Rethinking ADHD and ASD: From Pathology to Human Trajectories (Gracio Marinho Sobral Santos, December 2025)
American Psychiatric Association — Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)
World Health Organization — International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11)
