Neurodiversity‐Affirming Intersectional Approaches That Target Public Policy: Moving the Focus From Changing Individuals to Changing Systems of Power

ABSTRACT The neurodiversity movement challenges traditional deficit‐oriented models of autism. However, inclusion efforts often prioritize individual attitudinal change over structural reform (e.g., policies and research practices) or exclude Autistic people with intersecting marginalized identities. Just research requires scientific inquiry to challenge the oppressive systems from which it emerges, and can sometimes reinforce, by directly addressing interlocking structures of power. Otherwise, research can fail to serve, and even perpetuate harm against, the most marginalized Neurodivergent people, including those with intellectual disabilities, nonspeaking individuals, and racial, ethnic, and gender minorities who remain underrepresented in broader research and policy generation. This special issue, Using Neurodiversity‐Affirming Intersectional Approaches to Build More Equitable Societies and Shape Public Policy , therefore, seeks to challenge the systems of inequality dominant in autism research by uniting neurodiversity and intersectional frameworks with a focus on policy recommendations. In this introductory article to our special issue, we share the strategies we used to improve representation in our special issue and an overview of the papers in the special issue. We, the guest editors of the special issue, intentionally used our networks to seek contributions from scholars, advocates, and communities traditionally excluded from academic publishing, such as nonspeaking people and those from the Global South. This resulted in a special issue organized into three thematic sections: grounding neurodiversity in intersectionality to improve policy, addressing underrepresentation in research, advocacy, and publishing, and promoting systems‐level and grassroots approaches to wellbeing. Across contributions, authors offer empirical and/or theoretical insights with actionable policy recommendations and demonstrate a range of approaches such as community‐led methods, Open Scholarship practices, and decolonial and critical race frameworks that can shift power, improve measurement and access, and guide equitable resource allocation. Together, we call for a field‐wide pivot from changing individuals to transforming systems, so that justice, participation, and self‐determination are attainable for all neurominorities, especially those at multiply marginalized intersections.