What is your opinion on the concept of some “disorders†in the DSM being treated as neurodivergences rather than illnesses? Generally, this is most common with ASD and ADHD, but do you think that this is a good shift or harmful? Do you think that this works better for some conditions or others? Does it help with stigma, self acceptance, or harm it?
Would it be treated any differently with the change? As Lexicon says above (which I agree with):
I think framing certain conditions as such may be helpful to remove the stigma of having an illness (though that stigma shouldn't exist to begin with), but typically a diagnosis/label in general is sought because said set of symptoms/traits/behaviors has been interfering with the individual's ability to function in some significant way, or adversely affecting their quality of life.
No matter how it's labelled, if it's causing problems with everyday life, some type of intervention (be it medication, &/or building up a personal toolbox of healthy coping behaviors) will likely still be necessary to aid in adapting to their environment, so they're better able to participate in important areas of life, & improve overall QOL.
The point should really be the impact on the individual's life, really, and how much it upends things to the point of them 'not functioning', but this- in the case of some mental illnesses (as it is called), is also very highly dependent on the individual's surroundings. I am moving forth with the assumption that we are accounting for illnesses that manifest in a large enough variety and a spectrum to warrant discussion on how much is neurodivergence, and how much of it is plain disability/mental illness. I am going to use autism and ADHD as examples throughout my paragraphs, since it's something I'm more familiar with.
There has been debate and discussion on the autism spectrum being another mode of processing instead of a disability, and that it's really actually nothing to be 'cured', like how there is a variant of people who like parties (Extroverts) more than hate parties (Introverts) (I know this is much less severe and not debilitating, but my point is the understanding that it is 'natural' and there's nothing 'wrong' with it).
It is true that autistics, however, cannot do a lot of things neurotypicals do- for eg (and to severely, overly simplify); they break down when they are overly stimulated, which then requires that they have accommodations, such as allowing noise cancelling headphones, or like how folks with ADHD are allowed a bigger window of time to complete exams in uni, have their own room to do so, etc. Here's the thing though, in a country of ADHD/autistics such 'accommodations' would be the
norm and given without question instead of a special exception that is being made. The more 'unpleasant' autistic symptoms that autistics are more known for (meltdowns, etc) usually occur only in the face of stressors to the point of being overwhelming, which means
it's more about how it is treated and the environment, that 'disability lies with the environment, not the individual'.
The point I am trying to make here is that with several types of mental illnesses, the level and type of 'neurodivergence' really depends very heavily on the environment and thus what norms are present, and I think the true bulk of the question that lies in OP here is how can we truly draw a definitive line in such a case? How can we truly assess if it is 'mental illness' or 'neurodivergence'? If the autistic is 'more disabled' or 'less disabled', or the ADHD individual is 'more distractible' or 'less distractible' depending on their environment, is it really a problem with
them, or a problem with them being arbitrarily forced into norms for the sake of it? And- how much do we need to help, or how much can we get away with not helping? What does the answer to the question in OP actually solve for these individuals? If we as a society change nothing, and keep perpetuating ignorance despite our very PC attempt to understand "Okay, folks, what is
actually wrong with these people?" we haven't really done anything.
I think questions such as the one in the OP
usually (I'm not saying you, OP, are posing the question in this manner) come from people
missing the point and focusing a lot more about offending less people or overfocusing on the divergent individual themselves (and often in a way that blames, or jumps to and assumes incompetence) instead of treating the symptoms as they present and asking themselves what they can do. The true stigma isn't with the name, it's with the symptoms and how they are treated, it's with the widespread ignorance in media, like the ones that portray schizophrenics as criminals, or ADHD folks as 100% bubbly '~creative~' people who can't plan for jack shit. It also places far too much focus on the 'mentally ill' individual rather than the society the individual is in- have you ever seem the question being asked if we blare sounds too loud, lights too bright for autistics? No, it's the autistic being 'too sensitive', which, while correct, places the burden entirely on the individual and absolves people from feeling like they can do, or have to do anything about it, which I think is a problem with questions phrased this way, and is a problem that allows questions such as these to surface to begin with.
Bonus for autistic readers (and I do still have a point to make that still ties back to OP as well, bear with me): there are people who build autistic friendly houses. For people who only experience autism as something they view as a third party, here's some (generalised) insight into what's going on that manifests in the behaviour that you see:
How to create an autism-friendly environment - Living Autism
My point with posting all I did and including such a link is to argue and demonstrate understanding where things come from and why are the way they are is the first step to understanding the differences, which I would say is the first and most basic step we must take before we begin labelling anything at all based off our own very limited understanding of the experience as a third party watcher instead of someone living through it. Too many mental illnesses are labelled based off how 'disruptive' they are to others rather than as an explanation of how they work and what we need to do for them. Sometimes it is asked with the intention of finding out "Okay, so how much of what they are doing is
their own problem?" It makes them seem 'difficult', 'unreasonable', because people don't understand where they're coming from and they're filling the blanks based off their own limited, neurotypical experience. To neurotypicals: you can only understand so much by watching how
mental illnesses (which are internal) manifest on the outside, and I think that people need to recognise that an take care when trying to answer questions such as in the OP, and there is a lot of nuance that I can guarantee is not being accounted for. Stay considerate, and be informed.
So I see it as less of a double edged sword and more like straight progress. 
