I don't like the word "neurodivergent." There's a need for it I won't dispute. But it's 5 syllables, a mouthful for something ubiquitous (note: even longer than the word "ubiquitous," which is already a puffy way to say "prevalent" or "everywhere" or "widespread" or "common").

Worse than any of that, the opposite of "neurodivergent" is "neurotypical," an even more prevalent condition that's given a supremely dismissive name. Does anyone ever say "neurotypical" without a note of contempt, or at least frustration? I'm not sure I've ever heard it if so.

It makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to be branding normal people with this five-dollar smack talk.

It's fine. I think the words are relatively harmless and sometimes, as I said, necessary.

But how about calling normal people "normal"? And how about calling eccentric people "eccentric"? We don't need to medicalize it, and if we do we don't need to make it sound so weird.

"Neurodivergent" gives an air of authority, like many overlong words.

"Neurotypical" is dismissive not least because a person without ADHD is not "neurotypical" but rather "non-ADHD." We don't know what they might have or be.

If I were writing slang for a sci-fi story, I'd use "reg" for "neurotypical" and "diff" for "neurodivergent."