Mainstream parenting advice is not interchangeable with parenting advice for autistic children.

***Before we begin, a couple of headsups… Firstly, I haven’t published anything here for two months now, before that I was writing two articles a week. My own capacity fluctuates and when I’m in highly emotional and tiring states writing isn’t possible. Thankyou for your patience and understanding on that. (How very neuro-affirming ;) Secondly, I’ve written this article in second person, which isn’t usually my style. As an advocate and meanderer of thoughts my writing sits within a first person approach, afterall my own lived experience and mind leads the way when I write. Today though I’m in a bit of a scathing mood, and I felt called to accuse. Please know this isn’t personal, it doesn’t mean I’m talking to you, or blaming or shaming you. It just felt good, and made sense, to write this out very pointedly. It’s a hormonal-fuelled externalising of rage. You are not the protagonist, I just needed an outlet today. xxxx

Mainstream, regulatory based parenting advice is not interchangeable with neuro affirming parenting advice.

And honestly, along with the rise of child centred, gentle, regulatory based, relational parenting advice online, has come an increase in my own intolerance for the way these methods have been delivered to the neurodivergent community as a ‘best choice’ scenario for acceptance and inclusion.

In fact, mainstream parenting continues to perpetuate harm in so many ways to so many people and often leaves parents bubbling away in a pit of despair because even when they follow the most beautiful parenting advice of our age “it’s still not working!”

Let’s start with a few fundamental truths - Neuro-affirming doesn’t mean ‘being affirming’ it means ‘affirming neurodiversity’. In other words, believing in neurodiversity. Making decisions and parenting and teaching in ways that reflect that we believe in neurodiversity. Neuro affirming does not mean being positive, calm, regulated, understanding, affirming, accepting and inclusive yet still acting in ways that deny neurodiversity!

If you don’t really understand what this means, or whether this sentiment is directed at you, then you need to dig more deeply into the concept of neurodiversity itself.

Neurodiveristy = the existence of a natural variation of braintypes.

Neurodiversity doesn’t mean ‘act inclusive but aim to get everyone regulated, prevent meltdowns, heal trauma, or provide strategies to make it easier for them in the real world’. That’s assimilation. That’s going ‘I understand that there is a natural variation of braintypes and I will aim to lovingly support them to have an easier go in life.’

But it shows that you think strategies and calm and being included will lead to an easier go in life.

Neuroaffirming means ‘I understand that there is a natural variation of braintypes and I will lovingly support them to actualise in the fullness of exactly who they are.

And the thing is - autonomy and authenticity and permission to exist in ones fullness has the potential to lead to greater things than a perceived ‘easier go in life’ anyway.

‘Affirming’ is our deeply conditioned desire to help humans have an easier go in life, but neuro-affirming (which isn’t our deeply conditioned state) desires us to help humans actualise as themselves.

And this is the point of difference.

This is the point I invite you to journal about, seek supervision for, unpack in your practice, feel uncomfortable with. Challenge yourself.

This is the point that will determine whether your methodology and education is really suitable for all or not.

Is the foundation of your message always, always ALWAYS steeped in acknowledging a child’s reality and unique experience? Or it based in a so-called improved state?

Let’s look at some examples…

• You teach parents about boundary setting and natural consequences to maintain firm values as opposed to arbitrary rule setting and discipline.

Sounds affirming. But is it neuro-affirming? If the boundaries are rules packaged up in a nicer terminology it’s likely that many autistic children will clock that immediately. And that can impact the relational safety. They may not be able to explain concisely why this concept and framing has been problematic for them but the truth is that the lack of transparency and the hiding of something that feels the same (a rule) within the guise of a different word (a boundary) can feel sneaky, manipulative and like a spade is not being called a spade.

Autistic people sense things. More than others. We have neural pathways for daaaays, more than other people do. Our sensory systems go beyond the average. We will FEEL your packaged up boundary setting and register that as a trick. Because no matter what is said, the boundary will impact us in the same way the rule will. And the natural consequence of this whole experience then may be that ‘I can’t trust my primary caregiver’.

Also, are the boundaries realistic within your child’s fluctuating capacity? Autistic people have spiky profiles, some days the boundary will be a breeze, others not so much, and others still we will purposely punch that boundary to the ground and rub it in the mud because the autonomy we seek is more necessary to us than any of our family or classroom values. Sometimes we mask, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we can inhibit our urges sometimes we can’t. Sometimes we care, sometimes we won’t. These aren’t representative of our personalities (even though they also can be), but these are to be expected when we throw ‘fluctuating capacity’ into the mix.

Boundaries in and of themselves can be neuro-affirming, an expectation to meet and keep the boundaries usually isn’t.

• You teach ‘we do not kick* in this family’ (*insert punch/bite/strangle/scratch etc here)

Sounds fair and responsible, but is it neuro-affirming if your child DOES kick you, or their siblings, or friends? If they DO kick, then the ‘we do not kick in this family’ is incorrect from it’s inception. And you will likely already not believe in it, which means every time you say it your body will interpret it as a lie.

I know what it’s like to be in a kicking family. It leads to desperation, isolation, fear, shutdown and trauma. It can have lifelong emotional and physical implications. When I was in the thick of this era I wanted to kick the people who were teaching parents to hold the ‘we do not kick in this family’ value/boundary/rule. It highlighted to me that they didn’t understand all children. That they had no idea about the life life I was living. That their knowledge was limited to a smaller demographic of families, and mine was not included.

The ‘we do not kick in this family’ rhetoric was isolating and impossible, and that is not neuro-affirming.

If you are teaching a ‘we do not kick* in this family’ rule, and more or less it’s manageable, then you are speaking to neuro normativity, not to neurodiversity, and while your support may help some families, it sure won’t help the kicking families.

• You received your ADHD or autism diagnosis recently and are now teaching others how to support children with neurodiversity

Chuckle, sozz, couldn’t help myself. But if you are using terminology incorrectly (as in the example ‘children with neurodiversity’) then you probably haven’t done enough unlearning and relearning to be responsibly placing yourself in this role.

But way more importantly is this: if you are new to identifying with your neurotype/s there are so many things that need actioning before you teach others. You may not recognise it, because we often confuse self acceptance and a positive neurodivergent identity with being neuro-affirming. A positive neurodivergent identity is a beautiful thing but is not the same as being neuro-affirming, and in fact isn’t even necessary to be neuro-affirming!

Positive neurodivergent identity is not enough to insert yourself into a position of influence over neuro-affirming practice because neuro-affirming practice will demand OH. SO. MUCH. OF. YOU. before you get even close to that point.

A neuro affirming version of you is not the same as the person you were before you were neuro-affirming.

And you won’t understand that until you do.

(On a side note, if you identify with ADHD what you may be sharing as ADHD content/education/info is likely a mashup of ADHD/autism/AuDHD content. So exploring your autistic identity is a responsible choice before naming your characteristics as ADHD alone.)

• You are teaching popular mainstream concepts as regulatory tools (ie. resilience, gratitude, empathy, mindfulness etc)

Regulatory tools for autistic families are founded in autonomy, actualisation, liberation from systems that don’t serve them, bodily awareness, glimmers (the opposite of triggers) and spins (special interests), acknowledgement of pain, disregulation, fear, grief, survival mode etc. accommodation of needs, individualised sensory input, relational safety and meaningful connections.

And honestly these are the things we should ALL be afforded on the grand pilgrimage towards the window of tolerance, because neuro-affirming approaches support everyone, not just neurodivergent folk.

Mainstream buzzwords require us to be, do or experience something that is often outside of our regulatory capacity. This is not trauma informed. This supports the average, the neuro-normative mainstream. This is not neuro-affirming in nature.

It’s also another way of isolating parents for whom these strategies will never ‘work’.

When we seek what we believe is the most top notch of parenting advice, purchase another best selling parenting book, we try what they suggest, it never in a million years helps us, and we feel even more hopeless than we did before we started outsourcing our inner knowing to mainstream experts, it can cause harm.

Autistic families need autistic parenting advice. And support to follow their own inner compass. Not to lean in to popular anything.

• You create content around strategies for supporting executive functioning or behavioural change

Surely this doesn’t even require a written breakdown, we’re past this point now, SURELY. Behavioural change is not the point, it’s the bi-product.

The thing is, many mainstream parenting educators are aiming for behavioural outcomes even when they say they aren’t behaviouralists. Trying to reduce hyperactivity? Lower anxiety? Help your children be organised? Help your child’s social skills? Teach your child not to swing on their chair, run away, hit other kids, go to school etc etc??? Then you should be not be advocating to autistic families!!!!

Because strategies are the opposite of what supports us. Strategies are tricks, and we are too sensitive for that.

If you’re creating content or writing books regarding ANYTHING behavioural based for children, and you recommend ANYTHING other than felt and relational safety, then you are not appropriate for autistic families.

Now, we could go on and on with these examples for years, these were just a few. And while many examples of mainstream parenting advice are obviously not autistic friendly, many many many many are presented as ‘best practice’ and ‘universal’, and many parenting educators genuinely assume their content will support autistic families because it comes from a place of human nature.

This creates a big problem. Because it’s the families with the most debilitating blend of challenges that are seeking parenting advice in the first place. They are likely neurodivergent families and very likely autistic families. And they are accessing mainstream parenting educators because that’s what is available and because when we don’t yet understand internalised ableism their content makes so much sense.

If you’re a parenting educator talking to all parents about all children I beg of you PLEASE disclose when your content speaks to neuro-normativity, so that those who will never fit that mainstream mould (which is actually the global minority) know not to despair when your advice doesn’t ‘work’ for them or sit right.

And if you don’t yet understand how or which parts of your advice is neuro-normative then you need supervision and professional development and an honest inner enquiry.

The responsibility for this is on the educator, not the consumer, and the outcome of this will absolutely change lives and expectations and system and structures.