Just a guess here - but to make diagnosed people feel more included and part of a group, the more people get diagnosed even if it's 0.01%, the more safe the others feel because they're not alone, it stops being a stigma
> but to make diagnosed people feel more included and part of a group, the more people get diagnosed even if it's 0.01%, the more safe the others feel because they're not alone,
I've worked with younger people in tech. I'm seeing a mix of effects, positive and negative, from increased diagnosis rates.
On the plus side, some people are using their diagnoses to find helpful support material, techniques, and advice.
On the negative side, some people get a diagnosis and then try to use it as an excuse for every personality trait they can fit under the umbrella of that diagnosis.
It's really difficult as a mentor to have to explain to someone that their diagnosis of anxiety or ADHD or autism doesn't give them a free pass in society for all of the things they struggle with.
I've had to explain to numerous people that having an ADHD diagnosis doesn't, for example, exempt them from the same performance review standards as their peers at work. This can be difficult to acceptance for someone who was given extra time on tests and possibly more leniency on assignments throughout high school and college due to their diagnosis. The educational institutions meant well, but the students took the wrong message from their accommodations and assumed it was always the world's responsibility to bend to their personal quirks rather than the other way around. Teaching people that their diagnosis is, to be blunt, not other people's problem is a difficult hurdle to clear for some. Many others get it right away, of course, but the internet rhetoric about neurodivergence leads a lot of people in the wrong direction.
> I've had to explain to numerous people that having an ADHD diagnosis doesn't, for example, exempt them from the same performance review standards as their peers at work.
I can’t speak for you, but that isn’t at all accurate as far as I know. I myself would not say these kinds of things to a coworker, and definitely not to a subordinate one or one that reports to me, as I don’t work in HR or legal department, and I’m not intimately familiar with actual existing accommodations for ADHD and other conditions under the FMLA and other disability discrimination laws and regulations in the US or other countries.
This is a legal minefield and accident waiting to happen. Tread lightly.
> I can’t speak for you, but that isn’t at all accurate as far as I know.
> I’m not intimately familiar with actual existing accommodations for ADHD and other conditions under the FMLA and other disability discrimination laws and regulations in the US or other countries.
Why are you saying it's inaccurate if you don't understand the laws and regulations?
The FMLA that you cited and linked is for emergency medical leave, not for ADHD accommodations.
You're also making a mistake that I see a lot: Getting an ADHD diagnosis is not the same as having a disability. It is possible to qualify as having a disability due to an ADHD diagnosis, but it's a substantially more difficult standard to achieve and prove. The average ADHD patient will not and cannot qualify as being disabled due to ADHD.
This is exactly what I was talking about: There has been an explosion of over-confident opinions about how ADHD and other mental health conditions intersect the workplace that have no basis in reality. The amount of incorrect ADHD information circulating on places like Reddit and TikTok is leading people in the wrong direction in large numbers.
> Why are you saying it's inaccurate if you don't understand the laws and regulations?
I didn’t say I wasn’t familiar with them, I said I wasn’t intimately familiar with them.
> The FMLA that you cited and linked is for emergency medical leave, not for ADHD accommodations.
It’s about more than that, but that’s neither here nor there.
Needing to take time off regularly, irregularly, as needed, or working less than full-time at an ostensibly full-time job due to a medical condition that may or may not be a disability are accommodations that would fall under FMLA, and it would be a factor in someone being unable to meet otherwise-reasonable standards or expectations. The FMLA applies even if your medical condition isn’t considered a disability, for that matter.
That’s specifically why I said that I’m not speaking for you, because I don’t know what you know or don’t know, nor do I know what jurisdiction you operate in, but I know enough to not advise others about how to speak about coworkers’ medical issues - I just don’t do it! I don’t speak about coworkers’ medical issues, because it’s none of my business, and it’s a poor use of my time, their time, and the company’s time. It’s also not in my job description to comment on my coworkers’ medical issues.
I’d be happy to discuss this further and read any resources you may have on this subject, though. I don’t claim to be an expert, and I am amenable to reason.
> and read any resources you may have on this subject,
If anything, I'd suggest reading up on the details of FMLA.
FMLA is not, for example, a free pass to take time off as needed, or regularly.
The wording of FMLA is more about recovering from an illness. Someone who routinely becomes overwhelmed with work and needs extra time off is going to have a hard time arguing that it's actually FMLA protected leave.. FMLA will specifically exclude things like taking time off for routine medical care, because it's specifically not for those purposes.
> LEAVE FOR MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS UNDER THE FMLA
> An eligible employee may take FMLA leave for their own serious health condition, or to care for a spouse, child, or parent because of a serious health condition. A serious health condition can include a mental health condition.
> Mental and physical health conditions are considered serious health conditions under the FMLA if they require 1) inpatient care or 2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.
> A serious mental health condition that requires inpatient care includes an overnight stay in a hospital or other medical care facility, such as, for example, a treatment center for addiction or eating disorders.
> A serious mental health condition that requires continuing treatment by a health care provider includes—
> Conditions that incapacitate an individual for more than three consecutive days and require ongoing medical treatment, either multiple appointments with a health care provider, including a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, or clinical social worker, or a single appointment and follow-up care (e.g., prescription medication, outpatient rehabilitation counseling, or behavioral therapy); and
> Chronic conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression, or dissociative disorders) that cause occasional periods when an individual is incapacitated and require treatment by a health care provider at least twice a year.
> REASONS FOR LEAVE
> Leave for the Employee’s Mental Health Condition
> An eligible employee may take up to 12 workweeks of leave for their own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform their essential job duties.
> Example:
> Karen is occasionally unable to work due to severe anxiety. She sees a doctor monthly to manage her symptoms. Karen uses FMLA leave to take time off when she is unable to work unexpectedly due to her condition and when she has a regularly scheduled appointment to see her doctor during her work shift.
How is this stance different from one that says the same thing about your race or being deaf or requiring regular injections? Seems to me this is saying that some forms of bigotry are OK and the victims of it just need to deal with it. That neural disorders aren't as real or important because you can't see them and that makes it easier for some people who have them, but at a functional level, try to make more of it than they should. Because of this everyone with any level of these conditions should just suck it up where it doesn't jive well with our common hierarchical workplace organization.
> How is this stance different from one that says the same thing about your race or being deaf or requiring regular injections? Seems to me this is saying that some forms of bigotry are OK and the victims of it just need to deal with it.
I never suggested discrimination based on mental health conditions is okay or encouraged. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't put it on your resume and you can't expect it to exempt you from having to do your job. It's simple.
I don't understand your analogy to race because that doesn't make any sense and certainly isn't relevant to what I said.
As for your example of being deaf: The reality is that any disability that prevents someone from doing a job, in a way that that cannot be reasonably accommodated, means that an employer doesn't have to hire that person for the job. This makes people angry in the general sense, but the truth is that there are jobs that require certain abilities to perform. If someone was, for example, confined to a wheelchair then they would not be considered for a job loading trucks. That's "discrimination" in the general sense of the word, but it's certainly not bigotry.
I think you've either misunderstood what I was saying, or you're upset that the world isn't as idealistic as you want. The reality is that if a condition prevents someone from doing a job and it can't be reasonably accommodated, the employer isn't forced to keep paying that person and ignore their inability to do the job.
Having ADHD is a hurdle, but not something that prevents most people from doing jobs. It makes them more difficult, yes, but not impossible. If the condition is so bad that it becomes disabling (legal definition) then that's a different story, but again you're not required to employ people who have disabilities that prevent them from doing the job.
The analogy to race was due to DEI training at work. They equate all things people have biases against as things you should work to overcome. Race is one of these as is sex, handicaps, etc.
The deaf example is actually quite good. People who suffer from neurological disorders have a disability (in the legal sense) that sometimes can't be accommodated in a very similar way. But they aren't considered to be disabled in the same sense and people don't recognize it. They instead just think the people have bad social skills and should try harder (my last employer's DEI training said exactly this). If you had a deaf or wheelchair bound person and people just generally decided that those are excuses for doing things that everyone else can do then it'd be comparable (I mean things that they can do, but can't do as others expect because, say, they can't hear the instructions from their boss).
I'm really not that concerned with a perfect world and I agree with much of what you are saying. I'd best describe my feelings as annoyed and concerned for how much society has doubled down on all DEI biases being unacceptable except for those against people with neurological disorders (both sides of that annoy me, the doubling down and the ignoring).
And I apologize for suggesting, if indirectly, that you were bigoted. I meant that more as a rhetorical statement but don't think I couched it as well as I could have.
> The educational institutions meant well, but the students took the wrong message from their accommodations and assumed it was always the world's responsibility to bend to their personal quirks rather than the other way around.
This is kind of a toxic perspective and could be why you have so many problems with your neurodiverse coworkers. If you believe they should never require accommodations and are always expected to conform to the rest of society, then you don't understand what that experience is like and how further debilitating it can actually be.
> If you believe they should never require accommodations and are always expected to conform to the rest of society
That's not what I said. The amount of toxic projection happening underneath these comments is wild.
Anyway, I did not say they shouldn't get accommodations. I said those accommodations do not exempt them from having to do the job.
The mistake being made is to confuse accommodations that help people do their job with "accommodations" that exempt the person from having to do the job.
Two different things! You can expect the first in the workplace. You cannot expect the second.
I’m sorry, no one is going to bend their whole life to fit whatever accommodation you require. If you have a covered disability and a company legally must provide some minimal accommodation, then sure. If you are a weirdo who needs their emotional support stuffed animals surrounding the office or you break into a panic attack, you will discover life isn’t fair pretty quick.
This is not my experience at all. Being diagnosed directly led to immense stigma over and over. You are literally giving people the language they need to stereotype you and put you into a bucket by getting diagnosed and telling people your diagnosis. Stigma is literally an iatrogenic consequence of diagnosis itself, never mind diagnosis stopping stigma! I hear "Autistic" thrown around as an insult maybe 10x more than I heard the same 20 years ago.
People feeling safe because they're not alone does not end stigma whatsoever either.
> by getting diagnosed and telling people your diagnosis
One of the things I try to emphasize with newly diagnosed young people is that they should not make their diagnosis an outward part of their personality.
There's a trend of putting your diagnoses in everything from your LinkedIn profile to your resume lately. I've been helping with resume review in a group and I've been stunned by how many times I've had to tell people that they need to remove their ADHD diagnosis from their resume.
I dont even like it on a personal level. People use these terms to describe themselves in very narrow buckets and stereotypes, and there is no logic to that at all. I saw a post on /r/ADHD for example thst went something like "Does anyone else svoid eye contact during sex" and everyones like "omg thats me too!". I mean...need I say more?
I get how it might be fulfilling to have a label to explain away all your behaviors but it makes no sense to do so and I find it extremely self-limiting
How does sifting people into smaller and smaller buckets work to make people feel more part of a group? Seems more like people who have felt marginalized in the past want others to feel marginalized like they did, and work to place people into smaller and smaller categories to do so.
