Lex Academic®

Recently, sensitivity and authenticity readings have grown more in-demand and noticeable in the publishing industry – and rightly so. Public interest in and awareness of neurodivergent human experiences have boomed, and so it is no surprise that the publishing industry is following suit to help validate, represent, and educate our communities.

But it is important to get this representation right in a publication. Neurodivergent experiences have not always been portrayed accurately and sensitively. Instead, publications have often reinforced stereotypes, ableism, and negative portrayals of these ‘realities’. For neurodivergent individuals like the author of this blog post, the impact can be devastating. At best, it could put us off reading for life; at worst, it will cause real psychological harm.

Nowadays, it is reassuring to see authors and publishers reaching out during the editorial process to those of us with lived neurodivergent experience to ensure that their work portrays our way of life as authentically and sensitively as possible.

This blog will explain how I work when I use my neurodivergent experience to carry out an authenticity and/or sensitivity reading, and why this step is so crucial when a text discusses neurodiversity. To begin with, though, it is worth clarifying the definition of authenticity and sensitivity readings, and the differences between them.

Authenticity vs. Sensitivity Reading

While the two definitions overlap, they serve distinct purposes.

Authenticity readings focus on ensuring that the portrayal of a neurodivergent person or neurodiverse community feels relatable – whether the thought patterns, behaviours, and social interactions accurately reflect how neurodivergent people actually experience the world. Authenticity reading ensures that the author and/or publisher ‘get it right’ on an emotional and cultural level, not just in factual terms (e.g. ‘to show autism’).

On the other hand, sensitivity readings focus on highlighting and rephrasing any potentially harmful content that appears (often unintentionally) in a manuscript. A sensitivity reader will spot portrayals or descriptions that reinforce or perpetuate stigma, discrimination, ableism, or internalised bias. A sensitivity reading will make a publication ethical, inclusive, and in line with currently accepted terminology and understanding.

Why It Matters

Given these definitions, a neurodivergent person with lived experience is naturally the best placed to carry out these readings. We have spent our whole lives living and experiencing society and the world differently from neurotypical people, in a way that only we really understand. How can we get it right, if we do not listen, acknowledge, and reflect these differences in our writing?

Being neurodivergent, I am familiar with the currently accepted terminology for discussing our differences: I know which words offend and which words are appropriate to describe ourselves. I understand the nuances of masking behaviour, and the challenges and complexities that a diagnosis brings. I also recognise how living in a neurotypical society, and repeatedly being misunderstood, can negatively affect mental health.

When authors and publishers collaborate with neurodivergent individuals with this lived experience, their written work can only be improved. It will have a more profound impact on readers, especially those of us who rarely see ourselves represented authentically in books. The text will also help to inform and educate the general public about neurodiversity, leading to greater support and understanding for neurodiverse communities.

Establishing the Brief

When I carry out an authenticity and/or sensitivity reading, I start by clarifying the brief with the author or publisher. Knowing the desired purpose of a particular work helps to refine and direct my focus.

Once I have a clearer idea of the writer’s desires, I find out more information about their manuscript’s purpose and the target audience. For example, it is helpful to know an age range if I am working on a children’s book, so I can align any terminology with their level of understanding, and I use my personal experiences from school life to help shape the guidance. I also find it useful to know whether the manuscript is targeted towards the neurodiverse community, or towards the neurotypical population. Is the intention of the upcoming publication to educate, validate, or help someone to manage the demands of neurotypical society?

Time to Annotate

I start by completing one uninterrupted pass through the manuscript, to get to grips with the text and writing style. I do not comment yet, but I notice things that sound wrong, or if something has been missed that ought to be included.

The second time I read the text, I go through it carefully, adding tracked changes or comments to aspects that are done well and areas where improvement is required.

It is important to highlight the areas that have already been rendered authentically and sensitively. It not only validates the hours of research the author has probably conducted when writing the manuscript but also lets them know what to keep as much as what to change. We do not want them undoing the wrong parts!

Where improvements are required, I begin by explaining why I recommend a given change. I will point out inaccuracies, ableism, or manifestations that do not reflect neurodivergent experiences. I might ask myself, ‘how would I feel if this statement were directed towards me?’. Although I might find some phrasing in the manuscript upsetting or offensive, I appreciate that its use does not always come from a place of malice. It is often unintentional, springing from a lack of knowledge about neurodiversity. After explaining why the area is problematic, I suggest how the section could be rephrased to ensure sensitivity and inclusivity. It is important to give rephrased examples for the writer to consider, because they might be hesitant to rewrite it of their own accord if they do not feel confident in their understanding of neurodiversity.

If there are instances of harmful language in the manuscript, then I always check the context before I amend it. Sometimes, writers include harmful language to call it out and explain why it is not acceptable, which can be educational for readers. The list below illustrates some of the main oversights that I see in manuscripts:

• The use of identity-first rather than person-first language is often preferable, particularly in relation to discussions of autism and ADHD. This means that we would say ‘an autistic person’, as opposed to ‘a person with autism’. Using identity-first language reinforces the fact that being neurodivergent is an integral part of our identities, affecting everything we do, all the time, and not an additional part of who we are, let alone one that is indicative of some kind of disorder.
• Neurotypical portrayals of neurodiversity tend to focus more on external traits and behaviours and the impact that these have on neurotypical people (e.g. ADHDers being ‘rude’ for ‘not being able to sit and listen’). These portrayals usually fail to mention how the neurodivergent person might be feeling, or what might be going on internally for them (e.g. racing thoughts and sensory overload in ADHD). The internal traits play a significant role in our neurodivergent lifestyles, so it is about time that we saw them reflected accurately in books. As a woman, my ADHD traits are highly internalised. This means that my head is constantly noisy (I describe it as like having multiple inner monologues, all talking at once). This is not easy to spot from the outside. I present as a daydreamer and more withdrawn than my male counterparts. The past trauma from being labelled ‘rude’ by many different people also plays a role. Before I discovered I was neurodivergent, I never understood how or why I had offended others. It has had a huge effect on my self-confidence and mental health. When I was at school, I thought maybe others would prefer it if I stopped talking altogether. I was scared of sharing my thoughts or opinions. Even as an adult, I still notice the impact of the trauma seeping through in phrases like, ‘Sorry, I don’t know how to say this without being blunt…’ or ‘I’m really thrilled, sorry, I’m just not very expressive!’.
• Discussions of neurodiversity often frame it as a problem to be fixed or cured, rather than as a difference in human experience. Philosopher Robert Chapman argues this point in their work, which exposes the very myth of the ‘normal’ brain. Framing neurodiversity in this way is an illustration of how we have all been conditioned to view difference as problematic. For instance, a manuscript might say that ‘ADHDers have trouble focusing’, which implies that ADHD is a problem because ADHDers do not focus in the same way as neurotypicals, when in fact it is just simply a difference in how our brains work. We might rephrase this example as, ‘ADHDers focus differently…’. This point resonates for me most in the workplace. I am very productive: I tend to work faster than my neurotypical colleagues, and the way I think helps me to be more creative and offer different perspectives. But I also need more breaks to help me regulate and focus. I find it helpful to change my position, so I prefer to have a laptop rather than a desktop PC. I love being able to work outside. Just because I can’t manage to sit still in a chair for eight hours a day, doesn’t necessarily mean my performance is affected. I just get things done differently. But if the result is the same, why does the method matter so much?

Drafting a Report

Once I have added my comments across the whole document, I begin to draft my final report. The main focus and length of the report will vary depending on the brief.

I make sure that the report is balanced, with both the strengths and weaknesses of the text outlined in relation to its portrayal of neurodiversity. In the report, I concentrate on the manuscript as a whole, noting any repeated areas of concern and providing some example quotations from the text itself to corroborate my critique. The report gives me a chance to go into greater depth about certain aspects mentioned in my annotations, but which are lengthy to explain in comments alone.

Summary

To summarise, it is fantastic to see a boost in demand for authenticity and sensitivity readings now that neurodivergent experiences are increasingly being portrayed in publications. Writers and publishers are now acknowledging the positive effect that insight gained through lived experience like mine has on their work, and they often conduct these readings to ensure that their manuscript is neither harmful nor misinforming for their audience. For me, working as an authenticity and sensitivity reader is hugely rewarding. It is comforting to know that my lived experience is helping to shape future publications, educate others, and empower neurodivergent individuals who might be reading them.

I have explained the process I carry out at Lex Academic for an authenticity or sensitivity reading in relation to neurodiversity. An author or publisher can expect this level of consideration and depth if they decide to commission an authenticity and/or sensitivity reading for their manuscript. If you are interested, please contact us for a fee quotation and turnaround time.