I think it seems a bit odd and pointless to call everyone who's not autistic for NT and talking of them like a group, generalizing their way of thinking, acting, etc.
...
It's so confusing. Please, give me answears.
To other AFF members: I think that we're getting a bit off track here - this was a genuine inquiry from someone unused to autistic culture, and sometimes there is a lot of catching up to do.
To Marla: Firstly, NT is used to describe a particular methodology of thought, just as terms like autistic, bipolar, schizophrenic, etc are used to describe other methodologies of thought. This isn't the same as saying NT's all think the same, as obviously no group of people think exactly the same.
I tend to agree that the term NT is quite often used to unfairly generalise, but this isn't the purpose of the word.
The term NT is useful because it gives a framework from which to discuss autism. For example, if hyperfocus is an autistic trait, then it follows that there is a group that has the inability to hyperfocus. In this way, there are things that you can say about NT's that are entirely correct, and using the word "neurotypical" makes it easy to discuss these differences. The only way that you could argue that the word neurotypical was useless was if you were arguing that all psychiatric labels were useless. I'd be the first to agree that there is some blurriness around the definition of all of these labels (including autism), but this does not make them useless.
Also, the word neurotypical as a group label lets people know to discuss differences on equal terms, as the only other way to put things is on a "problem" vs "no problem" level - which will never lead any sort of deeper understanding.
I do understand why people use the wourd neurotypical when it comes to that kind of discussions. I just reacted when I saw some indiiduals using it in a different way, making opinions about some NTs seem like facts about how they really are. It seemed so judgeing.