1 Yeah, I tend to rant whenever I see the word neurodiversity.  Bipolars and autistics are not the same, and what helps one may not help the other.  Automatically including people with biological mental illnesses in LGBT, and recommending the behavior prescribed for LGBT, is an abomination.

2 We had some Mandatory Joy some time ago.  Let me try again:  we had some Mental Illness Awareness training at work some time ago, and the Big Takeawayâ„¢ was dont call the wacky fuckers derogatory terms like crazy, wacky, freakish, nutso, bonkers, etc.  Use the term mentally ill!  Because the term mentally ill can never become derogatory!
So I've been working on that, and "neurodiverse" occupies the same namespace, and is just as easily perverted if you put some effort into it.  It's an idea so mentally ill, it just might work!

3 a) Mentally ill at least has the virtue of truth.  There really are genuine pathologies that involve the mind. 

b) I'm definitely crazy.

c) neurodiverse and neurodivergent implicitly have the context of an internet joke from decades ago.  A very high functioning autistic went 'wait, how am I the dysfunctional one here', and made 'the institute for the study of neurotypical disorder', a website where he described normal social behavior as being pathological.  So, both words are trying to conflate a bunch of other things with autism.  There are several falsehoods here. 

One, the diversity and divergence probably isn't.  People who are not ill may in fact be as internally varied as the people who are ill. 

Two, the flavors of ill are not all the same, do not need the same remedies, and sure as hell do not need HR, activists, and other such effers speaking on their behalf, and imposing policy on a bunch of people. 

Three, rolling mentally ill into LGBT carries the implication that the ill people should be having sex, probably with a bunch of strangers.  Having sex with a bunch of strangers won't make fix anything, and very likely will make things worse.

d) I was a weird bookish kid, overly inclined to trust books and other 'authorities'.  The environment I was exposed to growing up was already a little bit bad in this way, but not to the degree of today.  I've made some estimates of the results had I been gullible enough to take this stuff at face value, and believe it.  Not exactly a happy camper here.

e) One of the appeals people make against holding fringe positions is being outside of the consensus, and being thought strange.  Back in the day I chose to identify as monster, precisely because the consensus positions on acceptable thought were so obviously morally bankrupt, and promoting evil as being good.  (Public school sex ed was not thoughtful or discerning.)  There is no situation where I am not strange. 

f) Dear HR,   By your criteria, I count as disabled.  It is your policy to accommodate disabilities.  How do you plan to accommodate me by shutting the hell up about speaking on behalf of the disabled?  (*cut further discussion of policy*)  How do you plan to accommodate me by hanging from a gibbet? 

g) Yeah, I wish I had the courage to put that in writing under my own name, and send it.  On the bright side, they may be firing me soon, no matter how well I can manage to behave.  Down side, I'm wanting them to do so establishing that they are being unreasonable, not simply because of my acting on my increased levels of anger. 

4 https://erikengdahl.se/autism/isnt/dsn-psy.html
"Psychiatrists often use drugs, imprisonment, and harmful adversives on their victims. The primary area of delusion for in psychiatry centers on being a savior of sorts, who must rescue others from themselves using any means possible."
Strangely (or maybe not so) this is pretty much 100% correct.  (I will defend the oxymoronic "pretty much 100%" on the ground that the whole thing is loaded with odd typos, false synonyms, and the weird grammatical errors caused by thinking faster than you can type and refusing to proofread.)

5 There are almost certainly more than a few terrible psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. I'm not as skeptical as that person is of psychiatrists, because of closely knowing some folk who probably would not be alive without psychiatric intervention, and who are much more difficult without meds, or if their meds are off. (But the meds have also cost them greatly.) Additionally, I greatly fear psychiatric drugs and some other substances, after some personal personal experiences with being given psychiatric drugs for things that were, in hindsight, not that severe a problem. It's maybe like approving of capital punishment, /and/ not wanting to hand out a vigilante license to every hotblooded young man with a chip on his shoulder. Powerful set of tools, and we would have problems making sure they were not misused even if academic training and credentials were not almost entirely bullshit.