Co-opting the "neuro" in neurodiversity and the complexities of epistemic injustice.

This article tackles the theoretical thinking behind PPI and inclusion, input from people with neurodiverse conditions. By providing a perspective on how the prefix "Neuro" is positioned in a neutral and authoritative way (exemplified through our brief review of articles within Cortex), we explore how "epistemic injustice" (a concept used frequently in law, politics, philosophy and social science) can potentially arise. Epistemic injustice typically refers to a pernicious power dynamic whereby oppressed groups are silenced (Fricker 2007), either because certain voices are not given weight ("testimonial injustice"), or the ways in which they are allowed to speak (e.g., interpret their own experiences) are limited ("hermeneutical injustice") (Kidd and Carel 2016). We show how, for "neurodiversity", the mainstream "neuro" narratives are often positively felt by those deemed to be neurodiverse, and the lines between oppressor and oppressed break down, as both neuroscientists and people with neurodiverse conditions co-opt and influence each other's positions.