Document resource
Both sides of the debate about the rise in neurodivergence diagnoses - those who think that the conditions have been long underdiagnosed and are now being correctly recognised and those who think that normal variation is now being inappropriately pathologised - rest partly on the assumption that there is a fixed substrate of patient “experience,” which is being appraised differently by biomedicine.1 The contentious debate about whether conditions are “real,” rather than socially constructed, again rears its head.