@inthehandsPaul Cantrell I think I have been journeying my way through the same thoughts you've put down here. I watched a video on yt last night "30 signs you're masking autism" and it left me wondering if some of us are extraverted but high masking, creating the same draining effect from masking in social settings that would make one assume they are introverted. This goes double (triple, quadruple, etc?) for those of us who are closeted trans and/or queer.

In transition and working through AuDHD masking, I'm finding myself feeling more proactively social. It's still draining, though I'm discovering that I can stick in there a lot longer if I notice when I need breaks and can take them quickly enough. If I simply run out to my car or to the bathroom for less than 2 minutes when I need to, I can stick out and even enjoy social settings for hours, even if I went there by myself.

I mention all that to say: I used to think I was an introvert. Now, I'm pretty sure I'm not. Another trans person I follow joked about "transitioning to extravert," to which I now totally relate. This speaks to the idea of reduced or mitigated masking "changing" one's extraversion/introversion, or maybe actually revealing their extraversion. It could also bring the whole concept into question. What if nobody is introverted, but the drain is coming from whichever masks they bear? What if the masks are for an as-yet-unknown neurodivergence, or a novel combination of the known?

To me that just loops perfectly into your thread at this point. Extraversion, introversion, neurodivergence, allism. Are these terms useful, or are they "average" concepts against which we compare ourselves only to our detriment?

@sillyCoelophysisEm Dash (I'm a punctuation)
“Are these terms useful?” → Yes, I think they are. Naming patterns is useful. Identifying commonly shared characteristics is useful. Creating anchor points for sharing experiences, strategies, and new understanding is useful. We can use these terms without being reductive, or assuming any one of them completely describes a person.

It’s useful to have a word like “autistic” the same way it’s useful to have a word like “yellow,” even though yellow is a range of colors and there is no well-defined bright line where yellow becomes orange.

It’s specifically “neurotypical” as a category of person I’m arguing against. “Orange” is a color, but “none of the above” is…not.

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://hachyderm.io/users/inthehands/statuses/115765554340466683 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)