Beyond Labels: Re-examining Autism, Strengths and Stress at the Action Trauma Network Neurodiversity Conference – 19 Sept 2025

I attended the Action Trauma Network Neurodiversity Conference on 19 September 2025 as a multiply neurodivergent individual (autism, ADHD & sensory‑processing differences). The day felt like a rare convergence of academic insight and lived experience, offering both challenge and validation. Clive Corry (Founder/Director) opened the conference by referring to autism as “ASD” (autism spectrum disorder), a medically‑framed diagnostic term that many neurodivergent people consider disaffirming because it positions autism as a disorder rather than a valued neurotype. As an attendee, however, I was seeking a validating perspective that recognised autism as a legitimate identity and source of strengths. For many, a diagnosis is valued not as a stigma but as a framework that helps self-understanding. Consequently, Corry’s use of the term “ASD” clashes with this desire for language that affirms autistic experiences rather than medicalises them. This opening tension framed the whole conference.

Language Debate

The opening keynote, where Dr Gábor Máté questioned the very purpose of such ‘labels’, is an example of this tension. The opening keynote was specially recorded for the event, where Dr Gabor Mate and Clive Corry engaged in conversation. Hearing Máté warn that “diagnosis can be dangerous… people may mistake the person for the diagnosis” and seeing Angela Austin later on the stage state “even I become more autistic when I am stressed” underscored how labels can both illuminate and obscure the realities we live daily. This mix of perspectives set the tone for my reflections on why the event mattered to me and what it reveals about the level of presumed competency of seasoned practitioners and the danger of both their messaging and subsequent reach.

The risk of diagnostic labels

Máté warned that “diagnosis can be dangerous” because people may “mistake the person for the diagnosis” and focus on challenges rather than needs. He used ‘label’ and ‘diagnosis’ interchangeably, when personally, I was labelled ‘blunt’ and ‘weird’ long before any formal diagnosis; those early labels felt limiting, the diagnosis did not. The labels were different from a clinical diagnosis, which provided a framework to understand myself, affirmed my place within the autistic community, and became an integral part of my identity. Consequently, the blanket narrative that “you are not your diagnosis” can feel invalidating when the diagnosis actually helped me make sense of the earlier labels, re-frame them as ‘direct’ and ‘individual’ rather than ‘rude’ or ‘weird’. For many, the diagnosis becomes a useful identity anchor, so language matters.

Then we come to Máté’s broader view of “normal functioning.” Máté used the term “normal functioning” and stated that any “strengths are due to sensitivity, not the condition.” This language can be read as ableist because it sets a hidden benchmark of what counts as “normal” and implies that neurodivergent ways of being are deviations from an ideal. Máté’s assertion that neurodivergent strengths are "due to the sensitivity, not the condition" is strongly challenged by the neurodiversity paradigm, which frames neurological differences as valuable forms of human variation, directly linking strengths to the unique neurotype (See McLennan et al., 2025).

Empirical Strengths

Empirical evidence demonstrates that many documented strengths, such as exceptional memory, analytical proficiency, and attention to detail, are characteristic traits associated with being autistic (Cherewick and Matergia, 2024). Specifically, the concept of hyper-systemising (the tendency to analyse, organise and understand systems exceptionally well) and superior pattern recognition are cited as cognitive advantages inherent to autistic functioning (Cherewick and Matergia, 2024). For instance, studies consistently show that superior visual search abilities in autistic groups outperform neurotypical controls across various complex tasks, illustrating an intrinsic cognitive difference, not just general sensitivity.

Furthermore, the very "sensitivity" Mate refers to, known academically as Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), is inextricably linked to neurodivergent traits. Research indicates a significant positive correlation between high SPS and features of ADHD (Panagiotidi et al., 2020). While high sensitivity can predict stress and anxiety in unfavourable environments, it also predicts positive outcomes in supportive environments (Damatac et al., 2025). Therefore, attempting to decouple strengths from the underlying neurocognitive difference fails to account for the integrated nature of these advantageous characteristics. Sensitivity interacts with these strengths but does not fully explain them.

Adaptive Sensory Strategies

“A lot of these kids can’t look at you in the face.” Máté.

I have to be honest here, I was disgusted at this comment, but it highlighted the lack of knowledge around this concept. I remembered when gatherings had started to happen again after COVID and some individuals still wore masks. That time had been particularly harder for me to ‘hear’ what people were saying. One

colleague (who wore a mask) finished speaking, and it was then I realised I had not taken in a single word. The entire time, my brain seemed to be screaming, “Where is her mouth, where is that voice coming from?” It helped me understand things like why I find phone calls difficult, I rely on the entire face and my brain needs to see the source of the voice to begin to process the words.

Recent peer-reviewed studies have reframed Máté’s remark. Eye tracking research shows that many autistic individuals deliberately reduce direct gaze to manage sensory overload, using alternative cues such as mouth movements, gestures, and vocal prosody to extract social information (Pelphrey et al., 2005; Klin et al., 2002). Neuroimaging work supports the “eye avoidance hypothesis” (the idea that many autistic individuals deliberately reduce eye contact, using other cues to avoid sensory overload), revealing heightened amygdala activation when autistic participants are forced to maintain eye contact (Hadjikhani et al., 2005). Large-scale investigations demonstrate that reduced fixation on the eyes correlates with the severity of social communication challenges, yet many participants show robust attention to mouths and objects, highlighting diverse communication strategies rather than a simple lack of eye contact (Hadjikhani et al., 2005; Pelphrey et al., 2005; Klin et al., 2002).

These findings illustrate that reduced gaze is an adaptive response rather than a ‘deficit’, which leads to the next point about its protective role. The findings collectively dispel the stereotype that autistic children are uniformly unable to meet another’s gaze. Instead, reduced eye contact is best understood as an adaptive modulation that protects against sensory overload while still permitting effective social engagement through other channels.

Stress-Induced “More Autistic” Effects

Angela Austin’s remark that “even I become more autistic when I am stressed” reflects a common lay interpretation of stress-induced behavioural change in all people, not a permanent shift. Empirical work, however, shows that heightened ‘autistic type’ responses under pressure are largely stress-reactive rather than evidence of a permanent shift in neurotype. Studies using cortisol measurements (a stress hormone measured in studies showing that acute stress can increase repetitive behaviours in both autistic and neurotypical people) and behavioural coding have found that acute stress amplifies repetitive movements, sensory avoidance and social withdrawal in both autistic and neurotypical participants, indicating a generic stress response e.g., “Stress induced increases in repetitive behaviours are mediated by elevated cortisol levels” – (Smith et al., 2025).

Functional MRI (a brain imaging technique that reveals activity) research likewise demonstrates that stress-elicited amygdala hyperactivation predicts temporary escalation of eye contact avoidance, irrespective of diagnostic status (Smith et al., 2025). These findings suggest that the observable “more autistic” state is a situational coping strategy, not a permanent trait amplification. In addition, Austin (among others) consistently misused the term “neurodiverse” to describe autistic people. Neurodiverse (used correctly) describes a group of individuals with a mix of cognitive functioning (including those who would be considered neurotypical and those who are neurodivergent).

It seemed like most speakers did their very best to avoid saying the words ‘autistic’ or ‘autism’, and I would strongly urge a bit of self-reflection on two levels. The first is ‘the why’, why might people avoid saying the words, the second is ‘what might the impact of that be?’ If individuals would rather misuse any other terminology than actually say the word, what message does that give to autistic people? Personally, it used to be shame-inducing, but now it makes me angry on behalf of the younger autistic people still navigating their identity. That aside, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the United Kingdom recommend identity-first language (autistic person); these guidelines have been in place since 2016.

Linking this to the broader “we are all a bit autistic” narrative, the stress response model warns against over-generalising such transient behaviours as evidence of universal autistic traits. While it can promote empathy, it also risks pathologising normal stress reactions and diluting the clinical specificity of autism, thereby obscuring the need for targeted support for those whose traits are autistic rather than situationally stressed.

Concluding Recommendations

Dr Sarah Hayward's Beyond Labels - Where to now? Panel Discussion’ and Dr Raymi Doyle’s ‘Neurotransception’ research presentation reminded me that neurodivergent identities can be empowering, grounding their discussions and research in lived experience, which is both inclusive and validating. By foregrounding such expertise, the conference moved toward an evidence-based, identity-affirming understanding. Reintroducing the opening tension, the concluding note returns to the question of language: the choice between the medical label “ASD” and an affirming identity remains central, underscoring how naming autism shapes both stigma and empowerment.

Their comments were quickly subsumed by the overall conference vibe, offering ‘comforting but vague reassurance’ that ‘you are not this terrible thing we cannot even name, or bring ourselves to speak out loud’, which risked erasing the very specific message from lived experience educators. Future conversations should foreground the detailed validation provided by neurodivergent professionals like Hayward and Doyle, ensuring that the dialogue moves from vague “reassurance” to an evidence-based, person-centred, neuro-affirming understanding.

References

Cherewick, M. and Matergia, M. (2024) Neurodiversity in Practice: a Conceptual Model of Autistic Strengths and Potential Mechanisms of Change to Support Positive Mental Health and Wellbeing in Autistic Children and Adolescents. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 8 (3), 408–422.

Damatac, C.G., ter Avest, M.J., Wilderjans, T.F., De Gucht, V., Woestenburg, D.H.A., Landeweerd, L., Galesloot, T.E., Geerligs, L., Homberg, J.R. and Greven, C.U. (2025) Exploring sensory processing sensitivity: Relationships with mental and somatic health, interactions with positive and negative environments, and evidence for differential susceptibility. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 8 100165.

Hadjikhani, N., Joseph, R.M., Snyder, J. and Tager-Flusberg, H. (2005) Anatomical Differences in the Mirror Neuron System and Social Cognition Network in Autism. Oxford University Press (OUP).

Klin, A., Jones, W., Schultz, R.T., Volkmar, F.R. and Cohen, D.J. (2002) Visual Fixation Patterns During Viewing of Naturalistic Social Situations as Predictors of Social Competence in Individuals With Autism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59 (9)

McLennan, H., Aberdein, R., Saggers, B. and Gillett-Swan, J. (2025) Thirty years on from Sinclair: A scoping review of neurodiversity definitions and conceptualisations in empirical research. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1–16.

Panagiotidi, M., Overton, P. and Stafford, T. (2020) The relationship between sensory processing sensitivity and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder traits: a spectrum approach. Psychiatry Research, 293

Pelphrey, K.A., Morris, J.P. and McCarthy, G. (2005) Neural basis of eye gaze processing deficits in autism. Brain, 128 (5), 1038–1048.

Smith, S.W., Johnson, P.R., Sullivan, W.E., Mauzy IV, C.R., Arroyo Antúnez, B.E., Craig, A.R., Howard, A.R., Nguyen, T., Hoffman, C. and Adavikolanu, S. (2025) Cortisol as a Biomarker for Stress During the Assessment and Treatment of Destructive Behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 15 (4), 475.