Giftedness as Other
What We Lose When We Label All Gifted People as Neurodivergent
“Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female.”
- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949)
French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir famously argued that “woman” is not born, but made. Rather than serving as a neutral identifier, womanhood is imposed through a set of traits and stereotypes shaped by society, especially by men.
In Beauvoir’s theory, “woman” is not constructed in her own right but in relation to man: as his opposite, his counterpart, his Other. Without man, woman ceases to exist; she is merely the foil to the protagonist.
This notion of the Other has rung in my mind lately like a warning bell. Over the last decade, the label neurodivergent has expanded to encompass anyone who doesn’t align with dominant cognitive norms, including gifted individuals. And while the intention is inclusivity, I believe there are downsides to this conceptual model.
Defining Difference: The Power of Neurodiversity and Neurodivergence
De Beauvoir’s brilliance was in drawing attention to how power consolidates around what is considered “normative,” and how everyone “outside” that norm is defined by their deviation from the center.
Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in human neurology, much like biodiversity in ecosystems. But neurodivergence only exists in opposition to a center—those deemed neurotypical.
Coined and popularized by members of the neurodiversity movement in the 1990s, the term neurodivergent was a powerful act of reclamation of cognitive difference (Botha et al, 2024). It challenged the medical model that pathologized autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other uncommon cognitive profiles—traits that are now ironically understood to be far more common than once believed.
This shift brought vital affirmation and advocacy, particularly for families and mothers who had been unfairly blamed for their children’s differences. And in the face of continued misinformation from people in positions of power, the neurodiversity movement also pushes back against falsehoods and stigma by affirming that neurodivergent individuals can lead full, meaningful lives.
The Allure—and Danger—of Normal
Including giftedness under the neurodivergent umbrella is well-intentioned, and many gifted individuals do identify as neurodivergent. I’ve used the term myself in my writing and consulting practice, with colleagues, and in presentations. I support anyone who identifies as neurodivergent—whether they are autistic, gifted, dyslexic, or otherwise. I do not wish to take away anyone’s empowerment or belonging.
Still, I worry that for gifted individuals who don’t identify as having an additional cognitive profile or learning challenge, the label may obscure more than it reveals.
Neurodivergent implies deviation. It relies on a comparison: divergence from an unspoken “norm.” In de Beauvoir’s terms, neurotypical becomes the universal subject, while neurodivergent becomes the Other—defined by contrast rather than essence.
This framing becomes problematic for gifted people, many of whom have no formal diagnosis. What do we call someone who isn’t so much different as they are more—more intense, more sensitive, more complex?
Giftedness: Not a Deficit, But a Different Mode
Gifted individuals exhibit exceptional intellectual, emotional, and creative capacities. But these attributes don’t diverge from the norm—they expand upon it.
Gifted minds operate with an expanded set of internal rules, multi-layered cognitions, and greater emotional awareness. Their thinking is more associative and abstract, their emotions more intense, their awareness more encompassing.
These aren’t traits that depart from a baseline; they shift the baseline.
To call giftedness neurodivergence is to place it outside the center, when in fact, giftedness may simply represent an expanded expression of central human ability.
Neurodivergent risks othering gifted individuals in the same way women have historically been othered—not seen for who they are, but defined in contrast to a presumed standard.
And this language is also biologically inaccurate, as there is significant overlap in brain structure between neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals. Arbitrary cut-offs for these categories are often also behaviorally based or determined by an individual’s level of difficulty with the expected social environment, rather than being driven by a true biological marker of difference (though different cognitive profiles have been found to have different biological signatures).
Language, Belonging, and the Complexity of Identity
Labels can be affirming, especially for those with disabilities or co-occurring diagnoses. The term neurodivergent can build community and support.
But for some gifted individuals, particularly those without a disability, the label feels misaligned. It suggests pathology where none exists. It reinforces the idea of a "correct" kind of brain, casting all other forms of cognition as deviations.
The categorization of exceptional minds must balance recognition with nuance; otherwise, we risk flattening complexity into diagnosis and pathologizing human diversity.
The problem isn’t with gifted, twice-exceptional, or neurodivergent people.
The problem is a society that refuses to accommodate difference, and the simplistic language we use to describe complex differences.
Yes, gifted people struggle. But their struggle is not the same as that of individuals with developmental or learning disabilities. There is hardship from a mismatch between your skills and those that society deems essential—and hardship from having too much of what society fails to value.
In this light, neurodivergent may not be spacious or specific enough to capture gifted experience.
A Call for More Expansive Language
Years ago, I began using the term neurocomplex to describe gifted and twice-exceptional individuals, drawing from my work in neuroscience. I particularly liked that the term captured the nuance of twice-exceptionality: profound strengths combined with areas of challenge.
I recently discovered that another author had coined and popularized the term independently—a convergence that I find quite funny, and which speaks to the need for new language.
Still, I’ve moved away from using neurocomplex for the same reason I now question neurodivergent. These terms, while well-meaning, risk flattening giftedness or other cognitive profiles into a catch-all category that masks unique features and challenges. Like the umbrella term “People of Color,” catch-all terms can inadvertently obscure the nuances they aim to elevate.
These umbrella terms often serve no one fully—especially those who don’t fall squarely in the middle of the bell curve. They reinforce the idea of a center, a norm, against which everything else must be measured.
Simone de Beauvoir didn’t argue that womanhood should be discarded—only that it should no longer be defined in opposition to man. Likewise, the answer isn’t to reject the idea of neurodivergence altogether. It’s to ask: Who decides the norm and the Other? And what would it mean to stop using this language entirely?
Rather than squeezing giftedness into a binary of typical vs. atypical, or into broad terms like neurocomplex, we could instead speak more precisely about various cognitive profiles, of features such as developmental asynchrony, heightened perception, or emotional intensity.
The Purpose of Labels—And When to Let Go
We can and should root our identities in presence, not contrast.
I value labels when they offer insight or enable access to support. As an example, the DSM is imperfect, yet useful in clinical contexts. Terms like autism, ADHD, and OCD are all tools to help us begin meaningful conversations and receive support.
But we don’t need to sacrifice these imperfect concepts on the altar of inclusion. We can honor difference without defaulting to contrasting or catch-all terms.
And perhaps that’s the deeper work: not just refining our labels, but building a world where no one is made Other for how their mind works.
Looking for Gifted Support?
As a gifted education and career consultant, I specialize in supporting bright, intense, and creative minds from school through career.
Whether you are looking for school placement for a gifted child, making career decisions as a gifted adult, or seeking to understand what giftedness means for you, I offer personalized coaching and expert guidance.
You can learn more about my services and book a free introductory call here.
Keywords: giftedness, neurodivergent, neurocomplexity, Simone de Beauvoir, twice-exceptional, cognitive intensity, neurodiversity movement, gifted adults, asynchronous development, emotional intensity, redefining normal
References
Beauvoir, S. de. (2015). The second sex. Vintage Classics.
Botha M, Chapman R, Giwa Onaiwu M, Kapp SK, Stannard Ashley A, Walker N. The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism. 2024 Jun;28(6):1591-1594.