Incel Culture & Neurodiversity: Two Sides of the Same Coin?


I recently moved towards a dialogue on Twitter; and while I knew debates over Neurodiversity were pretty ugly things, even I was shocked at the bizarre distortions of my calls for autistic males to reject victimhood; whether out of malice, ignorance or carelessness, these were changed (by the bizarre postmodernist sleight of hand of my opponents) into calls for victimhood.
Of course, I’m not going to become a victim in turn; those familiar with my writing know I have been consistently opposing autistic victimhood and entitlement for some time. That’s one reason why I reject Neurodiversity. However, I do want to discuss a selection of today’s commentary from myself and others, in order to show why incel culture and Neurodiversity are both deeply, deeply toxic ideological phenomena.
Just to shake things up a bit, let’s start with something that was from a little later on in the evening:

Low sexual status is a gift, in some respects. It may not sound like it to may (sic) of you, but it is. I mentioned this earlier today, and I got a lot of vitriol from Neurodiversity proponents.
This is because Neurodiversity is based in victimhood and entitlement. Sex isn’t a human right. There are other ways. Neurodiversity and incel culture are two sides of the same coin. Both are intimately related to identity politics and collectivism.
In other words, a positive and affirmative recognition of one’s own low sexual status, as an autistic male, is potentially a very powerful thing.

But let’s rewind a bit.
What actually happened?

My original tweet was this:

It’s important for #autistic ppl to avoid using the term ‘involuntary celibacy,’ as this sounds too similar to #incel culture. I think we can all find ways of framing the low sexual status of autistic males that are less loaded with negative connotations. Anyone got suggestions?

It’s difficult to see how anyone could disagree with that. Avoid using the term involuntary celibacy, reject incel culture, find a more constructive way of talking about the low sexual status of autistic males, avoid victimhood and entitlement (in male, sexual or autistic terms; either of the three).

Then again, this is Twitter, as we know…

Braxton “Social Justice Satan” Bragg (sic!) said:

Low sexual status sounds an awful lot like the idea that people are owed sex based on social stature. Just no. No one is owed sex. Period. Also, sex isn’t that fucking big a deal.

Here, we can already see that my arguments for courage, against male entitlement, against autistic victimhood, have been twisted into an argument FOR sexual entitlement. You can see from all the tweets I’ve linked to, that precisely the argument I have made recently, and will continue to make, is that ‘involuntary celibacy’ is a bad framing of the issue.

Another person said:

Again, we can see the not so subtle distortion, whereby a call to embrace courage and reject victimhood is bizarrely misrepresented as a call to victimhood.

In the end, you just have to laugh!

It’s possible this comment MAY have been inspired by Ryan Hendry’s own inexplicably incompetent misrepresentation of my earlier comments:

Have you not got some bitter ranting to do over your “low sexual status”?

Again, note how advocating against precisely such bitter ranting is turned into being FOR it.

Ryan said some other interesting things:

Wow, talk about an intellectual heavyweight! His creative hermeneutics are almost as impressive as his sense of tone and style.

Here’s a bit of background.

I have been arguing for a view of autism and of other forms of neurodivergence (neurological differences) that is not based in moral relativism, victimhood and entitlement. Neurodiversity is based in precisely these three toxic attitudes. Neurorealism is not postmodern, like Neurodiversity; Neurodiversity is identity politics. It’s an SJW ideology. Instead, Neurorealism advocates promote individualism, self-reliance, and independence; hence my arguments from earlier in the day, about how it is necessary to move away from the notion of ‘involuntary celibacy,’ to a more constructive and less victimhood-ridden approach.

Because Neurorealism is opposed to the establishment status quo ideology of Neurodiversity, supporters of Neurodiversity often distort arguments of Neurorealists. How much of this is deliberate, how much of it is stupidity, and how much of it is due to hasty skimming of Twitter, is obviously difficult to say. Either way, the postmodernist nonsense I have linked to above clearly demonstrates how quickly a postmodernist strawman can get half way around Twitter, before the actual argument has time to put its boots on.

Neurorealism has not been elaborated at full length in a book yet, although one of my priorities in the near future is to go much deeper into this topic. Here, I would like to show why Neurorealism is a good alternative to both Incel and Neurodiversity ideology.

#1 Objectivism

Firstly, Neurodiversity is based on hostility to science, as well as to scientists. Key points of conflict include the topic of autism cures, potentially opportunistic criticisms of ‘bad guys’ like Dr Hans Asperger, and the inappropriate insertion of value-laden words like ‘diversity’ into the topic of neuro worlds, where a more objective and less biased and value-laden term would do: like ‘differences’ or ‘plurality,’ for instance. Neurodiversity is a typical SJW / identity politics ideology, with the same contempt for the natural sciences, and for scientific professionals, as you’ll find elsewhere in postmodernist circles.

Simiarly, incels often spout badly digested evolutionary psychology, or whatever other scientific ideas come to hand; opportunistically weaponising them as moral arguments, instead of treating them as scientific theories; often in a deeply inappropriate manner.

In both cases, incels and neurodiversity apologists, science is not objectively true, but merely relative. It is of purely instrumental value.

#2 Universalism

Incels think they have a human right to sex. This is a chauvinistic approach, based on entitlement.

Neurorealists, by contrast, reject such a right. This is why I have said many times that the term ‘involuntary celibacy’ is incorrect.

Neurodiversity apologists buy into identity politics, which is a partisan game, rejecting a shared humanity and a shared citizenship. It is inherently divisive. Hence, we can see the kind of behaviour from some of the people mentioned above.

By contrast, Neurorealism implies moral universalism; not divisive identity hustling and parochial introversion.

To zoom out a little though, and to make a general comment about neurodiversity commentators more broadly, in various places:

Many, many Neurodiversity apologists are anti parent, anti doctor, anti-scientist, anti science, and anti neurotypical. (Neurotypicals are people who are not neurologically different from the norm).

I’m going to keep fighting against incel and Neurodiversity ideology; after all, they both have a shared hostility towards individualism, independence, self-reliance, realism, objectivism and universalism.

In other words, they are ANGRY BOYS!

And here are some final words of encouragement to finish off; very much in the spirit of the initial tweet that started the kerfuffle.

Neurorealism means treating your low sexual status as a gift. Neurodiversity means being a perpetual victim, wallowing in self-pity, as we’ve seen from Neurodiversity apologists on Twitter on numerous occasions. Be courageous about your low sexual status! It’s a blessing.
Neurodiversity and incel culture are both bad, for they are two sides of the same coin. So…
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, wear the badge of low sexual status with pride. There are many beautiful things we can all do, as non-sexual beings. I have been saying for a while that we can do great things.
Neurodiversity and incel culture both lead people away from courage. This is why Neurorealism offers a path beyond the sexual entitlement of incel culture, and the autistic entitlement of Neurodiversity. Choose life! Choose life, and life, and life again!

UPDATE 8 December 2019:

Over time, ‘Neurorealism’ became the ‘Autistic Dark Web,’ which for various reasons, never really got off the ground, although there were undoubtedly some positive learning experiences for all. I still have a healthy regard for many of the writers and ideas in the latter movement, but regardless gross distortions and irrational criticisms, the movement never was very coherent to begin with, because from my perspective, the various individuals involved in it didn’t necessarily share that much in common, either with regard to autism or otherwise. I’ve written my reflections on all of this elsewhere. For other interesting reading, see an anti incel article of mine on the Good Men Project, and my occasional series, Godwin in Cambridge; which originated on TOI, not Glossy News.

Author: Wallace Runnymede

Wallace is the editor of Brian K. White's epic website, Glossy News! Email him with your content at (Should be @, not #!) Or if you'd like me to help you tease out some ideas that you can't quite put into concrete form, I'd love to have some dialogue with you! Catch me on Patreon too, or better still, help out our great writers on the official Glossy News Patreon (see the bottom of the homepage!) Don't forget to favourite Glossy News in your browser, and like us on Facebook too! And last but VERY MUCH not the least of all... Share, share, SHARE! Thanks so much for taking the time to check out our awesome site!

4 thoughts on “Incel Culture & Neurodiversity: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

  1. I understand what you are saying, having followed this and noticed the same patterns in the last few years, so I’m very worried about the future impact of both rhetorics on vulnerable young people, and (as a result of their actions) society’s view of autistic people as a group.

    But I also find it hard to see the issue as black and white. Many of the grievances addressed by online autistic self-advocates are true and need to be talked about (eg. Medical knowledge of autism clearly lacking). “Incels” also have a right to vent with other people in similar situations to make them feel less alone in not being able to have a relationship.

    In both instances, the problem comes when the ranting and venting of frustration turns into a group mentality through echo-chambers of validating ALL feelings of victimisation from perceived aggressors (ill-trained health professionals and suffering parents or “chads” and “Staceys”). Then there’s the strict beliefs someone must follow to stay in groups and not be blocked from a much-needed venting space. Many stop expressing opposing arguments for fear of attack or rejection by the group especially if they’re struggling socially in real life. I find it hard to understand why this is happening in autistic circles, because by nature I believe we have an aversion to herd mentality, but it’s a creeping mentality when the person feels rejected by everyone but their Internet friends.

    I do see a small improvement in the neurodiversity community recently though, thankfully. Hopefully the fact people are now discussing opposing views will stop both ideologies from becoming ingrained permanently. Other autistic people speaking out (like you have) to enforce individual views of autism have made it so, for example, some are turning away from the outright ban and demonization of anyone using ‘person-first’ language, but instead are admitting that it should be up to an individual to decide what they call themselves or their children, and that the choice shouldn’t make them any less part of “autistic culture”, however you define it.

  2. Thanks, Yuval. I agree that the distinction is interesting. The Autistic Dark Web may have more on this in future.

  3. Excellent article. Both incels and neurodiversity advocates tend to view themselves as being above the rest of society, and blame society for their problems. Strangely enough though, the media supports neurodiversity entitlement but opposes incel entitlement.

Comments are closed.