Neuro-queering feminism: Creating space within feminism to address autistic experiences of gender oppression

Abstract

The emerging recognition of autistic women and gender-diverse people has highlighted the need for an intersectional approach to understanding their experiences of oppression. However, the axis of neurodivergence has so far been underaddressed within existing intersectional frameworks as the experiences of oppression of autistic women and gender-diverse people have historically been marginalised within both autism research and feminist theory. Addressing this marginalisation within these respective fields is important as autistic women and gender-diverse people experience unique forms of oppression that are underpinned by both patriarchal and neuro-normative structures. This theoretical paper uses neuro-queer feminism as an intersectional framework to examine the experiences of gender and neuro-minority-based oppression of autistic women and gender-diverse people. Neuro-queer feminism is outlined in terms of its usefulness as an intersectional framework for expanding the existing boundaries of feminist scholarship to include neuro-minority experiences of gender oppression, particularly in relation to autistic women and gender-diverse people. The applications of neuro-queer feminism are also discussed in relation to how feminist theory and practice can draw on the neurodiversity paradigm in addressing autistic experiences of gender oppression, such as gender-essentialist constructions of autism and gendered violence.

Keywords

autism gender intersectional feminism neurodiversity oppression violence

Autism is a term used to describe a collection of overlapping neuro-developmental differences in areas such as sensory processing, communication, motor skills, executive functioning, and social approach (Ne’eman & Pellicano, 2022). These neuro-developmental differences are commonly characterised as being atypical in relation to the normative standard, or typical range, of cognitive and behavioural traits (Shah et al., 2022). Historically, autism (and other neuro-developmental differences) has been conceptualised as pathology, based on deviation from the norm, in biomedical models (Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021). The pathologising construction of neuro-developmental difference has been challenged through the emergence of critical autism scholarship and, most notably, the neurodiversity paradigm, which has drawn focus to how this normative standard disenfranchises neurodivergence as a valid category of human diversity (Chapman, 2021).

Despite being primarily constructed within the realms of biomedical and psychological science, autism is often referred to as a “moving target” in terms of the way knowledge that is produced about it is informed by social and cultural discourses (Rosqvist et al., 2022). The gendered construction of autism is one prominent example. Autism has historically been coded as a predominantly male phenomenon, resulting in the underrecognition of autistic women and gender-diverse people (Saxe, 2017). While there is growing acknowledgement and critique of this androcentric bias, existing theoretical approaches are limited by the absence of an explicit neurodiversity-informed feminist framework for understanding and addressing the unique intersectional experiences of oppression of autistic women and gender-diverse people. Neuro-queer feminism is one such framework in which this gap in theory, and in turn praxis, can be attended to by conceptualising neurodivergence as an axis within the intersectional matrix of oppression (Collins, 2015).

Neuro-queer feminism is an emerging intersectional framework which aims to examine and foreground the experiences of marginalisation of neurodivergent women and other gender minorities (Johnson, 2021). As an intersectional framework, neuro-queer feminism is guided by the neurodiversity paradigm. The framework recognises and affirms neurodivergence as a key part of the diversity across people's experiences of social identity which intersects with other axes of oppression (Walker & Raymaker, 2021). Neuro-queer feminism therefore has the potential to function as a theoretical tool for examining neuro-normative oppression and developing a destigmatising feminist praxis (Egner, 2018). A key part of neuro-queer feminism is an antiexclusionary tenet which focuses on amplifying neurodivergent experiences of identity and oppression that have been marginalised within existing feminist movements (McConnell & Minshew, 2023). In doing so, neuro-queer feminism focuses on valuing the perspectives of neurodivergent gender minorities about the intersecting social positions that they occupy. This includes the pathologised categories of being that they often challenge in the negotiation of their neuro-minority identity and personhood (Oswald et al., 2022).

In this article, I provide an overview of neuro-queer feminism as a framework for expanding existing understandings of feminist intersectionality to include the experiences of oppression of autistic gender minorities. I discuss the synergies between intersectional feminism and the neurodiversity paradigm in terms of how they can be used in conjunction to foster a neuro-queer feminist approach to responding to autistic experiences of oppression. In this discussion, I also detail how neuro-queer feminism is well positioned as a critical, antioppressive approach to examining psychiatric sexism in relation to the pathology paradigm as a pervading force of disenfranchisement of neurodivergent gender minorities. In doing so, I also examine the application of neuro-queer feminism to gender and neurodivergent-based oppression of autistic gender minorities, with particular focus on central issues such as gender bias in autism research, the impact of gender essentialism and socialisation on identity, the dynamics of gendered violence, and how feminist practice can support autistic survivors.

A note on positionality

Proponents of the neurodiversity movement highlight the issue of epistemic injustice resulting from the exclusion of autistic people from the production of autism knowledge (Chapman & Botha, 2022), as their experiences have been predominantly defined by medical professionals and autism “experts” (Woods et al., 2018). This has started to change as autistic researchers and advocates have challenged the dominant pathologised constructions of autism and argued for a shift in research focus towards examining the social, cultural, and environmental factors that disenfranchise neuro-minority groups (Rosqvist et al., 2022).

Reflecting on positionality as a means of fostering epistemic humility is, therefore, an important principle of neurodiversity-informed praxis (Botha, 2021). Reflexivity is also an important part of critical intersectional feminist praxis as women and other gender minorities have faced similar issues around epistemic injustice, which is compounded for those who belong to multiple marginalised groups (Lafrance & Wigginton, 2019). Considering the synergy of these foundational principles across these theoretical positions, neuro-queer feminism should therefore be underpinned by a similar commitment to reflexivity and epistemic transparency. Accordingly, I explicitly disclose my positionality as a neurodivergent/disabled woman from a White, working-class background. This article is informed by my position, but since it was produced without community consultation, it can only be seen as a reflection of my position and not the wider neurodivergent community.

Intersectional feminism and the matrix of domination

The term “intersectionality” was initially posited by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw as a conceptual tool for examining the complex ways in which different identities, and their relative standpoints, interact within the context of the sociocultural power dynamics of oppression and privilege (Carbado et al., 2013). Intersectional feminism is one such position within this conceptual tool, which offers a framework for analysing structures of oppression of gender-minority groups (Heilmann, 2011). A related concept of intersectionality theory is Patricia Hill Collins's notion of “the matrix of domination” (Collins, 2000), which explains how different social and political structures intertwine to foster different experiences of oppression and privilege (Ferber et al., 2007). People who occupy multiple minority-group positions across axes of difference (such as class/socioeconomic background, race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and disability/neurodivergence) also experience overlapping forms of social marginalisation (e.g., classism, heterosexism, racism), or intersectional disadvantage, related to these positions (C. O’Connor et al., 2019).

Gender as an axis of oppression: The gendered hierarchy

Within feminist psychological theory, gender is understood as being both an intra and interpersonal identity that is shaped by socially constructed gender norms and experienced diversly across individuals (Macionis & Plummer, 2012). In this sense, gender is both a psychological and sociocultural phenomenon that can be categorised within existing frameworks (men, women, nonbinary, gender-fluid) but that also changes and evolves in line with expanding ideas about human identity expression (Valocchi, 2005). In contrast, sex is understood to be the biological category (male, female, intersex) that people are assigned based on their primary and secondary (neonatal) sex characteristics (Fine et al., 2023). The conflation of sex and gender is known as gender essentialism, which has been criticised by poststructural feminists for its role in normalising and perpetuating gender inequality and oppression (Skewes et al., 2018). According to this poststructural criticism, gender essentialism disregards the social, cultural, and political dimensions that construct gender and sex, and, in turn, how these reify gender inequality (Klysing, 2020).

An overarching concept within the three main feminist theoretical positions (liberal, radical, and Marxist) is that of challenging the closely related forces of gender stratification (social hierarchy, which confers greater power and privilege to men than women) and patriarchy (sociocultural structure based on the domination of men over subordinate gender minorities, notably women; Macionis & Plummer, 2012). Gender stratification and patriarchy are enforced through a concept known as the gender order—that is, how the gender binary (masculinity and femininity) (re)produces unequal power dynamics between men and women (Zinn & Hofmeister, 2022). Violence—whether symbolic, institutional, and/or interpersonal—also plays an important role in perpetuating the gender order (Almeida et al., 2023). One way the relationship between violence and the systematic subordination of gender minorities manifests is in the disproportionally high rates of male-perpetrated sexual and domestic violence across a range of contexts (Leon & Aizpurua, 2023).

Neurodivergence as an axis of oppression: The neuro-normative status quo

Similar to the concept of biodiversity, neurodiversity describes the diversity of human nervous systems occurring in nature (Pellicano & den Houting, 2021). Neurodiversity is a term used to signify the diversity of human neuro-types, and the neurodiversity paradigm is a framework for understanding and implementing a neurodiversity-informed approach to neuro-minority oppression (Walker & Raymaker, 2021). The neurodiversity paradigm was developed collectively by a group of autism rights advocates as a counter to the dominant pathology paradigm that shapes understandings of autism and other minority neuro-types (Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021). The pathology paradigm assumes that there is a universally “normal” or “correct” standard of human functioning; ways of being and doing that diverge from this normative standard are inherently pathological (Walker, 2021). The neurodiversity movement is a social movement informed by the neurodiversity paradigm. It aims to empower neuro-minority groups by dismantling the pathology paradigm and its reproduction of the neuro-normative status quo that disadvantages neurodivergent populations (Botha & Gillespie-Lynch, 2022).

A core concept within the neurodiversity movement is that of neuro-normativity. This concept refers to the hegemonic standard—or enforced range of “normal” behaviours—that simultaneously pathologises and stigmatises the diverse ways of being and doing that fall outside of this range, reifying the sociocultural structures and power dynamics that oppress neuro-minority groups by positioning these neuro-types as “inferior” and in need of “correction” (Chapman, 2020). In oppression theory proposed by Young (2014), violence is a direct way in which oppressive hegemonic structures are reproduced as marginalised groups face constant threat of unprovoked or unjustified attacks on their physical, psychological, and/or spiritual sense of safety and well-being, usually perpetrated for humiliation or subordination (Ferguson & Valls, 2021). In relation to autistic women and other gender minorities, this face of oppression manifests in the pervasive interpersonal, institutional, and identity-based violence that autistic people, especially women, experience throughout their lives, which is often normalised and blamed on their neurodivergence (Ridout, 2022).

The neurodiversity paradigm grew out of the social model of disability and shares philosophical and sociopolitical foundations with this model (Chapman, 2021). Proponents of the social model of disability argue that the organisation of society is responsible for disabling certain people. Irrespective of their impairment, a person's functional ability is limited by how environments and social systems are structured (Oliver, 2013). The neurodiversity movement also draws on the biosocial model of disability, which maintains a critical approach to the sociocultural construction of disability while also using biomedical frameworks to understand biologically based differences in functional capacity (Ellis, 2023). The biosocial model is particularly relevant for disabled people who require access to appropriate medical interventions (e.g., pharmaceutical medications, medical procedures, and specialist medical services) as part of their disability rights (B. Hughes, 2009).

While there is contention around whether or not the neurodiversity movement is relevant to autistic people with higher support needs, such as those with intellectual disabilities and/or who are nonspeaking, there is greater consensus in the autistic community than would be expected. Hersh et al. (2024) illustrate that autistic people are more likely to support the goals of the neurodiversity movement than nonautistic people. Nevertheless, there is still contention around the degree to which the neurodiversity movement reflects the experiences of autistic people who do find the medicalisation of their autism useful and, in turn, favour biomedical and behavioural interventions to alleviate the distress associated with their impairments (J. A. Hughes, 2021). In this sense, the neurodiversity movement does not reflect the differing individual experiences and meaning-making processes of autistic people. Nonetheless, the movement is underpinned by a commitment to human rights and empowering neuro-minority groups, whatever that may look like for individuals (Greenburg & Rosa, 2020).

Fostering a neuro-queer feminist understanding of autistic gender oppression

An area in which a neuro-queer expansion of feminist scholarship is particularly important is the deconstruction of psychiatric sexism and feminist antipsychiatry perspectives. Feminist critiques of psychiatry have centred on how certain psychiatric categories are used to reinforce patriarchal control of women's minds, bodies, and experiences (Swartz, 2013). Feminist scholars have examined how these categories are often used in ways that invalidate trauma, de-contextualise gendered violence, and de-politicise patriarchy as overarching factors in experiences of mental health and well-being (Dodd, 2015). Historically, groups of people deviating from the normative status quo (e.g., queer people, politically conscious women, resisters of colonial assimilation) were subject to psychiatric discourse pathologising their experiences of oppression as symptomatic of mental illness (Chapman, 2023).

Neuro-queer feminism as an alternative to antipsychiatry

Antipsychiatry is a sociopolitical movement broadly revolving around challenging psychiatry's dominance as an authority on human behaviour and psychosocial distress (Burston, 2018). Antipsychiatrists informed by critical theory focus more on how hetero-patriarchal, colonial, and capitalist structures are the primary catalysts for the psychosocial distress and the disablement of certain groups of people (Roberts & Itten, 2006). Conversely, libertarian antipsychiatry—the dominant position within the antipsychiatry movement—is more concerned with disrupting the notion of neurodivergence/psychosocial distress as a real phenomenon, claiming instead that it is simply a product of the psychiatric medicalisation of people who engage in problematic ways of living (Chapman, 2023).

In terms of feminist antipsychiatry, there are two key overlapping positions. The first position is that psychosocial distress is a construction of psychiatric nosology (i.e., classification of mental disorders) that medicalises women's emotions and trauma. The second is that psychosocial distress is a result of patriarchal social oppression, which psychiatric labels disregard in their conception of suffering (Kirschner, 2013). However, these positions arguably fail to consider a fundamental question: What if differences in human nervous system configurations both exist in nature and are subjugated by neuro-normative structures of oppression? Denying the existence of neurodiversity (i.e., the existence of differences in human nervous system arrangements) reinforces the dominant libertarian antipsychiatry positions which have no interest in challenging the pathology paradigm or empowering neuro-minority groups (Chapman, 2023). Similarly, to position distress as arising from oppression and alienation is valid but still arguably leaves room for the denial of neurodivergence as an axis of said oppression (Johnson, 2021).

The anti-identitarian approach of neuro-queer feminism makes it well positioned to address the tensions around psychiatric labels in feminist scholarship (Johnson, 2021). This anti-identitarian approach acknowledges that people can exercise unique forms of agency and resistance in their occupation of psychiatric labels (Egner, 2018). Those who inhabit these labels often do so in ways that challenge and disrupt the stigma embedded in their construction, allowing for the reconstruction of their subject positions (Shapira & Granek, 2019). Autistic women are an example of this. Their marginal position within the dominant conception of autism often allows for reauthoring their neurodivergent identity in more nuanced and self-empowering ways (Seers & Hogg, 2022).

Any feminist engagement with antipsychiatry should also be cognisant that contemporary proponents of antipsychiatry, across the different positions, have not expressed their support for the neurodiversity movement (Chapman, 2023). Many in the antipsychiatry movement view neurodivergent differences as arising from the pathologisation of normality, which they posit is a materially real phenomenon rather than a socially constructed one. At the same time, antipsychiatry discourse denies the existence of psychosocial and neuro-developmental disabilities, instead considering them to be individual character flaws (Arnaud & Gagné-Julien, 2023). In contrast, the neurodiversity paradigm challenges the pathologisation of human difference and rejects neuro-normativity as hegemonic (Catala et al., 2021).

Moreover, unlike the neurodiversity movement, many proponents of antipsychiatry are not inherently guided by antioppressive social justice values, and do not necessarily represent the lived experiences of the neuro-minority groups most impacted by psychiatric systems (Chapman, 2023). In this sense, the neurodiversity paradigm—and, in turn, neuro-queer feminism—is more aligned with the antioppressive, pro-diversity tenets of intersectional feminism than antipsychiatry is.

Applications of neuro-queer feminism: Autistic gender oppression

A neuro-queer, intersectional feminist analysis is useful in understanding the marginalisation of autistic women and gender-diverse people both within the autism space (research, practice, and knowledge production) and the wider society (Saxe, 2017). The gender-based oppression autistic people experience is evidenced by the construction of autism as a “male disorder” that has resulted in the underrecognition of autistic gender minorities (McCrossin, 2022) and the prominence of gender-essentialist theories in autism research that reproduce sexist stereotypes (Jack, 2011). Autistic women and gender-diverse people also experience gender-based masking pressures linked to the behavioural expectations that gender minorities are subject to in patriarchal societies (Mo et al., 2021; Seers & Hogg, 2021), heightened rates of mental health distress and suicide (Hedley et al., 2018; South et al., 2020), an intersection of neuro-normative and gender-based barriers to socioeconomic participation (Mellifont, 2021; North, 2021), and high rates of interpersonal violence and trauma (Reuben et al., 2021; Schnabel & Bastow, 2023).

Examining the history of autism through a neuro-queer, intersectional feminist lens illustrates how entrenched the gender bias is—not just in terms of autistic people, but also in relation to the psychiatrists who have studied them. The identification and construction of autism can be attributed to three key psychiatrists: Grunya Sukhareva, Hans Asperger, and Leo Kanner. However, Sukhareva, a woman, was the first of the three to study autistic traits in 1925 (Simmonds & Sukhareva, 2020). Sukhareva identified autistic traits that come closest to current understandings of autism, and was also the first to identify gender-based differences in the presentation of these traits (Sher & Gibson, 2023). In comparison, both Kanner and Asperger mostly studied male presentations and assumed that autism was primarily a “male disorder” (Gillis-Buck & Richardson, 2014). Of the three, Sukhareva is the least well known. Her contribution to the identification of autistic traits has arguably been excluded and ignored in the same way autistic women and gender-diverse people have been (R. A. G. O’Connor et al., 2023).

Challenging gender essentialism in autism research

The gender bias in autism research and practice is arguably rooted in the extreme male brain theory of autism (Jack, 2011). The theory proposes fundamental sex differences in the brain along a male–female continuum (Gillis-Buck & Richardson, 2014). According to this theory, autism is an “extreme” version of these male brain characteristics and is therefore more prevalent in men than women (Loomes et al., 2017). However, the extreme male brain theory has been challenged, and evidence of its role in reproducing this gender bias has been demonstrated (Moore et al., 2022). Additionally, more autistic women and gender-diverse people have subsequently been recognised (Driver & Chester, 2021). The extreme male brain theory has also been criticised by feminist scientists, who argue that it is an example of neuro-sexism: using neuroscience to reinforce problematic gender stereotypes of women as less intelligent than men (Friedrichs & Kellmeyer, 2022).

In relation to the emerging recognition of autistic women, the female autism phenotype theory has been formulated to counter the extreme male brain theory of autism (Moore et al., 2022). This theory asserts that women have distinct biological differences mediating their expression of neurodivergence (Hull et al., 2020). These differences supposedly include a greater capacity for developing social skills and relationships with others, as well as a tendency towards internalising behaviours rather than externalising behaviours (Bargiela et al., 2016). This theory has also been criticised for constructing an inverse stereotype of the extreme male brain theory that ultimately reinforces sex-based binaries and conceals gender diversity across autistic populations (Pearson & Rose, 2021). Moreover, these gender-essentialist constructions of autism disregard the role of sociocultural gender norms and expectations in mediating behaviour (Moore et al., 2022).

In contrast to the gender-essentialist theories dominant in autism research, the prevalence of gender variance (i.e., gender identities that diverge from binary feminine–masculine gender norms) across autistic populations is an emerging theme in the literature (Kourti & MacLeod, 2018). In relation to this, autistic individuals are significantly less likely to identify with their sex-based gender group than nonautistic individuals (Cooper et al., 2018). Additionally, autistic people are more likely to be transgender and/or nonbinary (George & Stokes, 2018). Gender variance is also commonly experienced by cis-gender autistic individuals and can thus be understood as a response to socially constructed gender norms rather than innate sex-based features of autism (Davidson & Tamas, 2016).

The experience of gender variance is also reflected in qualitative research that captures autistic women's reports of being ostracised for engaging in behaviours that deviate from normative gender expectations (Seers & Hogg, 2022). These experiences of gender variance are also supported by Cooper et al. (2018), who found that autistic people assigned female at birth experience significantly less attachment to femininity than nonautistic people categorised as female. However, autistic individuals also describe attempting to mask autism by performing normative gender behaviours, regardless of their gender identity (Kourti & MacLeod, 2018). Gender norms are learnt through childhood socialisation and reinforced by sociocultural practices that sanction sex-based gender expression (Seers & Hogg, 2022). Additionally, difficulty with the performance and embodiment of gender norms (linked to neurodivergent differences in movement, vocal prosody, pragmatic language, sensory-related clothing preferences, and monotropic interests) often results in targeted harassment of and violence towards autistic women, especially those who are gender nonconforming and/or queer (Barnett, 2017).

There is considerably less research about the experiences of oppression of gender-diverse autistic populations. However, emerging evidence suggests that they face unique issues related to the intersection of ableism and cis-heteronormativity, which often impedes their human rights and creates additional barriers to healthcare access (Dewinter et al., 2023). For example, gender-diverse autistic people commonly have their gender identity invalidated due to the construction of both autism and gender diversity as disorders in overlapping pathologisation discourses (Shapira & Granek, 2019). Added to this, it is often assumed that autism limits gender-diverse autistic people's capacity to understand gender identity (Barnett, 2017).

Neuro-queering feminist approaches to supporting autistic survivors of gendered violence

Autistic people experience disproportionally high rates of violence and abuse within their interpersonal relationships (Pearson, Rees, & Forster, 2022). Interpersonal violence for autistic populations appears to take a similar gendered pattern to that suffered by nonautistic populations; autistic women are more likely to experience this in the forms of male-perpetrated sexual violence and intimate partner abuse (Fox, 2024; Gibbs et al., 2022). Gender intersects with neurodivergence as autistic women experience higher rates of sexual and intimate partner violence than nonautistic women (Gibbs et al., 2021). While there is limited research capturing the prevalence of interpersonal violence for autistic gender-diverse people, emerging evidence suggests that they experience similar rates as autistic women do (Gibbs et al., 2024). However gender-diverse autistic people's experiences of interpersonal violence are also underpinned by cis-heteronormative forms of gender-minority-based oppression that heighten power differentials in their relationships, especially if they are victimised on the basis of both queer and neurodivergent differences (Cooke et al., 2024).

The historical marginalisation of autistic experiences of those other than White and male from autism research has excluded critical theoretical perspectives (e.g., feminism, queer theory, antiracism, etc.) that can usefully conceptualise the intersecting social, political, and structural mechanisms of oppression of diverse autistic populations (Strand, 2017). The absence of an intersectional feminist approach to the experiences of gendered violence of autistic people has also inadvertently perpetuated victim-blaming narratives focused on neurodivergence as the problem, disregarding the role of patriarchy, gender inequality, and ableism (Moore et al., 2022). Intersectional feminism in the context of critical disability scholarship has primarily examined how ableist and patriarchal structures overlap and interact to oppress disabled gender minorities in ways that are often underrepresented within single-axis feminist approaches (Robinson et al., 2020). Nevertheless, autistic and other neurodivergent gender minorities have so far been relatively underrepresented within feminist disability discourse (Gold, 2020).

Consequently, autistic women and gender-diverse people experience unmet support needs across all service delivery settings as they face significantly greater access barriers than autistic men do (Koffer-Miller et al., 2022). When considering the access barriers they face, autistic women and gender-diverse people may also experience unique difficulties in accessing and engaging with support services for gendered violence (Pearson, Rose, & Rees, 2022). Communication differences may make it difficult for autistic women and gender-diverse people to connect with services that require verbal communication of their experiences in order to access support, especially for those who are non- or minimally speaking (Lum et al., 2014). Sensory processing differences may also mean that noisy and unfamiliar service settings are too overwhelming for autistic women and gender-diverse people to access (Lockwood-Estrin et al., 2022).

Autistic women and gender-diverse people may also encounter service access barriers if they present in a way that deviates from normative constructions of distress (Ridout, 2022). For instance, literature capturing autistic women's experiences with healthcare highlights how they felt that their pain was dismissed by practitioners because of their “blunted” presentation in these settings (Tint & Weiss, 2018). Women's experiences of having their pain disregarded in healthcare settings are underpinned by an entrenched history of medical misogyny and androcentrism (Hoffmann & Tarzian, 2001). For instance, despite experiencing elevated rates of chronic pain compared to men, healthcare providers are more likely to classify women's pain as an emotional overreaction, rather than physiological in nature (Samulowitz et al., 2018). Autistic women and gender-diverse people likely experience compounded intersectional biases within healthcare settings, similar to those experienced by other multiply marginalised populations (Bastos et al., 2018). Gender-diverse populations also experience unique forms of gender bias linked to cisnormativity and transphobia within healthcare settings, resulting in stark inequalities in health outcomes (Clune et al., 2023; Rosenberg et al., 2021).

Responding to these systemic biases, a neuro-queer feminist approach involves challenging neuro-normative assumptions about how neurodivergent survivors should present and express distress. In doing so, neuro-queer feminism creates space for diverse, intersectional experiences of gendered oppression and violence. In line with this, a neuro-queer feminist approach is useful for understanding the gender- and neuro-minority-based oppression faced by autistic women, and how it creates barriers to accessing and engaging with support services around their experiences of gendered violence (Ridout, 2020). Neuro-queer feminism involves adopting a neurodiversity-affirming approach to feminist practice with neurodivergent survivors of gendered violence. In practice, this involves fostering resistance to normalisation, ensuring service delivery centres on affirming neurodivergent ways of being and doing rather than enforcing conformity to the status quo (Dallman et al., 2022).

Another essential part of neuro-queer feminism is fostering an antioppressive approach to praxis within psychology and related disciplines to dismantle the intersectional matrix of domination of autistic gender minorities. An antioppressive approach requires that practitioners develop a critical consciousness of power differentials both in their working relationships with marginalised individuals and at systemic and structural levels (Gupta, 2022). Integral to antioppressive praxis in the context of neurodivergence is using a critically reflective approach to practice that challenge neuro-normative stigma when working with autistic and other neurodivergent service users in all contexts (Pickard et al., 2020). In doing so, practitioners should examine their own constructions of neurodivergence and the degree to which these may be informed by the pathology paradigm and/or neuro-normative assumptions (Davies, 2022).

Conclusion

In this article, I define neuro-queer feminism as an emerging intersectional framework for examining the dynamics of oppression experienced by autistic gender minorities. In doing so, I propose neuro-queer feminism as a well-positioned intersectional framework for rectifying the limited representation of neurodivergent perspectives within existing feminist movements. Neuro-queer feminism is established as a useful approach to understanding and responding to the unique gender-based oppression faced by autistic people. I propose that neuro-queer feminism is a tool for enhancing existing feminist theory and praxis in relation to creating space for autistic experiences of womanhood, diverse expressions of gender, and addressing gender-based ostracism. I also explain how feminist antipsychiatry positions can be expanded, or neuro-queered, through engagement with the neurodiversity paradigm by facilitating critical examination of neuro-normative stigma and the pathology paradigm underpinning this.

My focus in this article is on autistic women and gender-diverse people as a key neuro-minority group to which a neuro-queer feminist approach is particularly relevant for conceptualising the dynamics of oppression. Expanding the intersectional matrix of domination to include the axis of neurodivergence (a key theoretical dimension of neuro-queer feminism) is also applicable across a range of neuro-minority groups. Nevertheless, further research is needed to investigate the experiences of other neuro-minority groups who face similar gender-based oppression to autistic women and gender-diverse people. Women and gender-diverse people with intellectual and learning disabilities are one such neuro-minority group with whom using a neuro-queer feminist approach is recommended. The neurodiversity movement has never revolved around excluding certain neuro-types from its emancipatory aims, and it should instead be considered in terms of whom it can be useful for, rather than whom it should be useful for.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge Julie-Anne Carroll for proofreading and providing feedback. I also wish to acknowledge Jodi Death for her support in completing this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jessica Fox

Author Biography

Jessica Fox is a doctoral researcher currently investigating practitioners’ experiences and insights around supporting autistic women who are survivors of gendered violence. Her research interests include the experiences of interpersonal violence and trauma for autistic women, with a particular focus on supporting recovery through feminist trauma-informed, neurodiversity-affirming practice approaches. Her BA was in psychology, where she was initially exposed to feminist theory and critical psychology. She has also completed a Master of Social Work, which expanded her understanding of critical praxis and antioppressive practice when working alongside marginalised groups.

References

Almeida

, Ramalho

, Morgado

, & Ventura

Baúto, R.

(2023). Gendered perspectives on intimate partner violence: A comparative study of general population, students and professionals’ beliefs. Social Sciences, 12(9), Article 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090528

Arnaud

Gagné-Julien

A.-M.

(2023). The new self-advocacy activism in psychiatry: Toward a scientific turn. Philosophical Psychology, 37(8), 2623–2646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2023.2174425

Bargiela

Steward

Mandy

(2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with autism spectrum conditions: An investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 46(10), 3281–3294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2872-8

Barnett

J. P.

(2017). Intersectional harassment and deviant embodiment among autistic adults: (Dis)ability, gender and sexuality. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 19(11), 1210–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2017.1309070

Bastos

J. L.

Harnois

C. E.

Paradies

Y. C.

(2018). Health care barriers, racism, and intersectionality in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 199, 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.05.010

Botha

(2021). Academic, activist, or advocate? Angry, entangled, and emerging: A critical reflection on autism knowledge production. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727542

Botha

Gillespie-Lynch

(2022). Come as you are: Examining autistic identity development and the neurodiversity movement through an intersectional lens. Human Development, 66(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524123

Burston

(2018). Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry: History, rhetoric and reality. Eidos: A Journal for Philosophy of Culture, 2(4), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.26319/4717

Carbado

D. W.

Crenshaw

K. W.

Mays

V. M.

Tomlinson

(2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000349

10.

Catala

Faucher

Poirier

(2021). Autism, epistemic injustice, and epistemic disablement: A relational account of epistemic agency. Synthese, 199(3–4), 9013–9039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03192-7

11.

Chapman

(2020). The reality of autism: On the metaphysics of disorder and diversity. Philosophical Psychology, 33(6), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1751103

12.

Chapman

(2021). Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959833

13.

Chapman

(2023). Empire of normality: Neurodiversity and capitalism. Pluto Press.

14.

Chapman

Botha

(2022). Neurodivergence-informed therapy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 65(3), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.15384

15.

Clune

Collier

Lewis

(2023). Health equity for trans and gender-diverse Australians: Addressing the inverse care law through the provision of gender-affirming health care in the primary healthcare setting. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 29(2), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22149

16.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

17.

Collins

P. H.

(2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142

18.

Cooke

Ridgway

Pecora

Westrupp

Hedley

Hooley

Stokes

M. A.

(2024). Individual, social, and life course risk factors for experiencing interpersonal violence among autistic people of varying gender identities: A mixed methods systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 111, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2023.102313

19.

Cooper

Smith

L. G. E.

Russell

A. J.

(2018). Gender identity in autism: Sex differences in social affiliation with gender groups. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 48(12), 3995–4006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3590-1

20.

Dallman

A. R.

Williams

K. L.

Villa

(2022). Neurodiversity-affirming practices are a moral imperative for occupational therapy. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 10(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1937

21.

Davidson

Tamas

(2016). Autism and the ghost of gender. Emotion, Space and Society, 19, 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2015.09.009

22.

Davies

(2022). “Autism is a way of being”: An “insider perspective” on neurodiversity, music therapy and social justice. British Journal of Music Therapy, 36(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/13594575221090182

23.

Dewinter

Onaiwu

M. G.

Massolo

M. L.

Caplan

van Beneden

Brörmann

Crehan

E. T.

Croen

L. A.

Faja

Gassner

D. L.

Graham Holmes

Hughes

Hunter

Huysamen

Jelonche

Lai

M.-C.

Noens

Pukki

Stokes

M. A.

. . . van der Miesen

A. I.

(2023). Short report: Recommendations for education, clinical practice, research, and policy on promoting well-being in autistic youth and adults through a positive focus on sexuality and gender diversity. Autism, 28(3), 770–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231188349

24.

Dodd

(2015). “The name game”: Feminist protests of the DSM and diagnostic labels in the 1980s. History of Psychology, 18(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039520

25.

Driver

Chester

(2021). The presentation, recognition and diagnosis of autism in women and girls. Advances in Autism, 7(3), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-12-2019-0050

26.

Egner

J. E.

(2018). “The disability rights community was never mine”: Neuroqueer disidentification. Gender & Society, 33(1), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243218803284

27.

Ellis

(2023). Imagining neurodivergent futures from the belly of the identity machine: Neurodiversity, biosociality, and strategic essentialism. Autism in Adulthood, 5(3), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0075

28.

Ferber

A. L.

Herrera

A. O. R.

Samuels

D. R.

(2007). The matrix of oppression and privilege: Theory and practice for the new millennium. The American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207307740

29.

Fine

R. D.

Gelman

S. A.

A. K.

(2023). Changing beliefs about gender: The relation between contact with gender nonconforming individuals and gender essentialism. Psychology and Sexuality, 14(3), 542–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2023.2181706

30.

Fox

(2024). The impact of intersectional disadvantage on autistic women’s experiences of interpersonal violence: A narrative review. Autism in Adulthood. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0100

31.

Friedrichs

Kellmeyer

(2022). Neurofeminism: Feminist critiques of research on sex/gender differences in the neurosciences. European Journal of Neuroscience, 56(11), 5987–6002. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15834

32.

George

Stokes

M. A.

(2018). Gender identity and sexual orientation in autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 22(8), 970–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317714587

33.

Gibbs

Gallagher

Hudson

Pellicano

(2024). Prevalence and risk factors associated with interpersonal violence reported by autistic adults: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-023-00426-x

34.

Gibbs

Hudson

Hwang

Y. I. J.

Arnold

Trollor

Pellicano

(2021). Experiences of physical and sexual violence as reported by autistic adults without intellectual disability: Rate, gender patterns and clinical correlates. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 89, Article 101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101866

35.

Gibbs

, Hudson

, & Pellicano

(2022). The extent and nature of autistic people’s violence experiences during adulthood: A cross-sectional study of victimisation. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 53(9), 3509–3524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05647-3

36.

Gillis-Buck

E. M.

Richardson

S. S.

(2014). Autism as a biomedical platform for sex differences research. BioSocieties, 9(3), 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.17

37.

Gold

(2020). Sex, lies and sisterhood: Staging intersectional feminism. Frontiers, 41(2), 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/fro.2020.a765270

38.

Greenburg

Rosa

S. D. R.

(2020). Two winding parent paths to neurodiversity advocacy. In Kapp

(Ed.), Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement (pp. 155–166). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8437-0_12

39.

Gupta

(2022). Truth, freedom, love, hope, and power: An existential rights paradigm for anti-oppressive psychological praxis. The Humanistic Psychologist, 50(3), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000274

40.

Hedley

Uljarević

Foley

K.-R.

Richdale

Trollor

(2018). Risk and protective factors underlying depression and suicidal ideation in autism spectrum disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 35(7), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22759

41.

Heilmann

(2011). Gender and essentialism: Feminist debates in the twenty-first century. The Critical Quarterly, 53(4), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8705.2011.02023.x

42.

Hersh

Dwyer

Kapp

S. K.

Shevchuk-Hill

Gurba

A. N.

Kilgallon

Mair

A. P. A.

Chang

D. S.

Rivera

S. M.

Gillespie-Lynch

(2024). Community member views on autism intervention: Effects of closeness to autistic people with intellectual disabilities and nonspeaking autistic people. Autism in Adulthood, 6(3), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0202

43.

Hoffmann

D. E.

Tarzian

A. J.

(2001). The girl who cried pain: A bias against women in the treatment of pain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2001.tb00037.x

44.

Hughes

(2009). Disability activisms: Social model stalwarts and biological citizens. Disability & Society, 24(6), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903160118

45.

Hughes

J. A.

(2021). Does the heterogeneity of autism undermine the neurodiversity paradigm? Bioethics, 35(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12780

46.

Hull

Petrides

K. V.

Mandy

(2020). The female autism phenotype and camouflaging: A narrative review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 7(4), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-020-00197-9

47.

Jack

(2011). “The extreme male brain?” Incrementum and the rhetorical gendering of autism. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v31i3.1672

48.

Johnson

M. L.

(2021). Neuroqueer feminism: Turning with tenderness toward borderline personality disorder. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 46(3), 635–662. https://doi.org/10.1086/712081

49.

Kirschner

S. R.

(2013). Diagnosis and its discontents: Critical perspectives on psychiatric nosology and the DSM. Feminism & Psychology, 23(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353512467963

50.

Klysing

(2020). Exposure to scientific explanations for gender differences influences individuals’ personal theories of gender and their evaluations of a discriminatory situation. Sex Roles, 82(5–6), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01060-w

51.

Koffer-Miller

K. H.

Cooper

D. S.

Song

Shea

L. L.

(2022). Self-reported service needs and barriers reported by autistic adults: Differences by gender identity. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 92, Article 101916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2022.101916

52.

Kourti

MacLeod

(2018). “I don’t feel like a gender, I feel like myself”: Autistic individuals raised as girls exploring gender identity. Autism in Adulthood, 1(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2018.0001

53.

Lafrance

M. N.

Wigginton

(2019). Doing critical feminist research: A Feminism & Psychology reader. Feminism & Psychology, 29(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519863075

54.

Leon

C. M.

Aizpurua

(2023). Do youth dream of gender stereotypes? The relationship among gender stereotyping, support for feminism, and acceptance of gender-based violence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), Article 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032439

55.

Lockwood-Estrin

Aseervatham

De Barros

C. M.

Chapple

Churchard

Harper

Jones

E. J.

Mandy

Milner

O’Brien

Senju

Smith

(2022). Homelessness in autistic women: Defining the research agenda. Women’s Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057221141291

56.

Loomes

Hull

Mandy

W. P. L.

(2017). What is the male-to-female ratio in autism spectrum disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(6), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2017.03.013

57.

Lum

Garnett

O’Connor

(2014). Health communication: A pilot study comparing perceptions of women with and without high functioning autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(12), 1713–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.09.009

58.

Macionis

J. J.

Plummer

(2012). Sociology: A global introduction (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

59.

McConnell

E. A.

Minshew

(2023). Feminist therapy at the intersection of gender diversity and neurodiversity. Women & Therapy, 46(1), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2023.2189776

60.

McCrossin

(2022). Finding the true number of females with autistic spectrum disorder by estimating the biases in initial recognition and clinical diagnosis. Children, 9(2), Article 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9020272

61.

Mellifont

(2021). Facilitators and inhibitors of mental discrimination in the workplace: A traditional review. Studies in Social Justice, 15(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v15i1.2436

62.

Viljoen

Sharma

(2021). The impact of socio-cultural values on autistic women: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Autism, 26(4), 951–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211037896

63.

Moore

Morgan

Welham

Russell

(2022). The intersection of autism and gender in the negotiation of identity: A systematic review and metasynthesis. Feminism & Psychology, 32(4), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535221074806

64.

Ne’eman

Pellicano

(2022). Neurodiversity as politics. Human Development, 66(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524277

65.

North

(2021). Reconceptualising “reasonable adjustments” for the successful employment of autistic women. Disability & Society, 38(6), 944–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1971065

66.

O’Connor

Bright

L. K.

Bruner

J. P.

(2019). The emergence of intersectional disadvantage. Social Epistemology, 33(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1555870

67.

O’Connor

R. A. G.

Doherty

Ryan-Enright

Gaynor

(2023). Perspectives of autistic adolescent girls and women on the determinants of their mental health and social and emotional well-being: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of lived experience. Autism, 28(4), 816–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231215026

68.

Oliver

(2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773

69.

Oswald

A. G.

Avory

Fine

(2022). Intersectional expansiveness borne at the neuroqueer nexus. Psychology and Sexuality, 13(5), 1122–1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1900347

70.

Pearson

Rees

Forster

(2022). “This was just how this friendship worked”: Experiences of interpersonal victimization among autistic adults. Autism in Adulthood, 4(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0035

71.

Pearson

Rose

(2021). A conceptual analysis of autistic masking: Understanding the narrative of stigma and the illusion of choice. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0043

72.

Pearson

Rose

Rees

(2022). “I felt like I deserved it because I was autistic”: Understanding the impact of interpersonal victimisation in the lives of autistic people. Autism, 27(2), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221104546

73.

Pellicano

den Houting

(2021). Annual research review: Shifting from “normal science” to neurodiversity in autism science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534

74.

Pickard

Thompson

Metell

Roginsky

Elefant

(2020). “It’s not what’s done, but why it’s done”: Music therapists’ understanding of normalisation maximisation and the neurodiversity movement. Voices, 20(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.15845/voices.v20i3.3110

75.

Reuben

K. E.

Stanzione

C. M.

Singleton

J. L.

(2021). Interpersonal trauma and posttraumatic stress in autistic adults. Autism in Adulthood, 3(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0073

76.

Ridout

(2020). Neurodivergence and the gaslighting of rape: A call for an improved societal response. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies, 15(2), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.18848/2324-7576/CGP/V15I02/47-65

77.

Ridout

(2022). “People like you…”: Unacceptable responses that trivialize justice for neurodivergent victim-survivors of gender-based violence. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social and Community Studies, 17(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.18848/2324-7576/CGP/v17i02/179-199

78.

Roberts

Itten

(2006). Laing and Szasz: Anti-psychiatry, capitalism, and therapy. The Psychoanalytic Review, 93(5), 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1521/prev.2006.93.5.781

79.

Robinson

Frawley

Dyson

(2020). Access and accessibility in domestic and family violence services for women with disabilities: Widening the lens. Violence Against Women, 27(6–7), 918–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220909890

80.

Rosenberg

Callander

Holt

Duck-Chong

Pony

Cornelisse

Baradaran

Duncan

D. T.

Cook

(2021). Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey. PLoS One, 16(7), Article e0253589. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253589

81.

Rosqvist

H. B.

Botha

Hens

O’Donoghue

Pearson

Stenning

(2022). Being, knowing, and doing: Importing theoretical toolboxes for autism studies. Autism in Adulthood, 5(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2022.0021

82.

Samulowitz

Gremyr

Eriksson

Hensing

(2018). “Brave men” and “emotional women”: A theory-guided literature review on gender bias in health care and gendered norms towards patients with chronic pain. Pain Research and Management, 2018, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6358624

83.

Saxe

(2017). The theory of intersectionality: A new lens for understanding the barriers faced by autistic women. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(4), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v6i4.386

84.

Schnabel

Bastow

(2023). Nothing for us, without us: A review of the clinical literature and discursive evidence of interpersonal trauma in autistic women. Advances in Autism, 9(4), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/aia-11-2021-0046

85.

Seers

Hogg

R. C.

(2021). “You don’t look autistic”: A qualitative exploration of women’s experiences of being the “autistic other.” Autism, 25(6), 1553–1564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361321993722

86.

Seers

Hogg

(2022). “Fake it till you make it”: Authenticity and wellbeing in late diagnosed autistic women. Feminism & Psychology, 33(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535221101455

87.

Shah

P. J.

Boilson

Rutherford

Prior

Johnston

Maciver

Forsyth

(2022). Neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodiversity: Definition of terms from Scotland’s National Autism Implementation Team. British Journal of Psychiatry, 221(3), 577–579. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2022.43

88.

Shapira

Granek

(2019). Negotiating psychiatric cisgenderism–ableism in the transgender–autism nexus. Feminism & Psychology, 29(4), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519850843

89.

Sher

D. A.

Gibson

J. L.

(2023). Pioneering, prodigious and perspicacious: Grunya Efimovna Sukhareva’s life and contribution to conceptualising autism and schizophrenia. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01875-7

90.

Simmonds

Sukhareva

G. E.

(2020). The first account of the syndrome Asperger described? Part 2: The girls. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(4), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01371-z

91.

Skewes

Fine

Nick

(2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS One, 13(7), Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921

92.

South

Beck

J. S.

Lundwall

Christensen

Cutrer

E. A.

Gabrielsen

T. P.

Cox

J. C.

Lundwall

R. A.

(2020). Unrelenting depression and suicidality in women with autistic traits. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 50(10), 3606–3619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04324-2

93.

Stenning

Rosqvist

H. B.

(2021). Neurodiversity studies: Mapping out possibilities of a new critical paradigm. Disability & Society, 36(9), 1532–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1919503

94.

Strand

L. R.

(2017). Charting relations between intersectionality theory and the neurodiversity paradigm. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i2.5374

95.

Swartz

(2013). Feminism and psychiatric diagnosis: Reflections of a feminist practitioner. Feminism & Psychology, 23(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353512467965

96.

Tint

Weiss

J. A.

(2018). A qualitative study of the service experiences of women with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 22(8), 928–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317702561

97.

Valocchi

(2005). Not yet queer enough: The lessons of queer theory for the sociology of gender and sexuality. Gender & Society, 19(6), 750–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205280294

98.

Walker

(2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.

99.

Walker

Raymaker

D. M.

(2021). Toward a neuroqueer future: An interview with Nick Walker. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.29014.njw

100.

Woods

Milton

Arnold

Graby

(2018). Redefining critical autism studies: A more inclusive interpretation. Disability & Society, 33(6), 974–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1454380

101.

Young

M. (2014). Five faces of oppression. In S. N. Asumah & M. Nagel (Eds.), Diversity, social justice, and inclusive excellence: Transdisciplinary and global perspectives (pp. 3–33). State University of New York Press.

102.

Young

I. M.

(2021). Five faces of oppression. In M. Ferguson & A. Valls (Eds.), Iris Marion Young: Gender, justice, and the politics of difference (pp. 92–111). Taylor & Francis Group.

103.

Zinn

Hofmeister

(2022). The gender order in action: Consistent evidence from two distinct workplace settings. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(8), 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2115019