Over the past two decades, the neurodiversity movement has played an important role in challenging deficit-based understandings of neurological difference, foregrounding social barriers, stigma, and exclusion rather than individual pathology. In practice, this has contributed to increasing reliance on broad neurodiversity and neurodivergent terminology, alongside greater acceptance of self-identification and, in some contexts, a move away from formal diagnostic processes. While these shifts have been valuable in resisting over-medicalisation, they also raise important questions about how neurodivergent need is identified, communicated, and supported in practice. This session explores the implications of current approaches to neurodiversity screening and identification, drawing on qualitative research on dyslexia and labelling (Macdonald, 2009; Macdonald & Deacon, 2019), as well as recent large-scale research on neurodiversity-related terminology and identity (Grant et al., 2025). Findings from dyslexia research illustrate how diagnostic labels, while socially constructed, often play a crucial role in making specific barriers visible, legitimising lived experience, and enabling access to targeted support in education and employment. Participants consistently reported that dyslexia could not be adequately captured by generic categories such as specific learning difficulties or neurodivergent, as it involves distinct patterns of literacy, working memory, and phonological difficulty that shape life-course experiences. The session then examines how umbrella neurodiversity language functions ambivalently within screening and support contexts. While such language can foster safety, community, and resistance to stigma, it can also flatten difference, obscure need, and disproportionately centre autism and ADHD at the expense of other neurotypes, including dyslexia, dyspraxia, and dyscalculia. Attendees will be invited to consider how broad identification without diagnostic clarity can hinder communication of support needs, particularly within professional and institutional settings. The session advances three core arguments: first, that despite high levels of comorbidity, lived experience is often structured around one dominant neurotype; second, that different neurotypes generate distinct forms of exclusion requiring differentiated responses; and third, that moving away from diagnostic processes within neurodiversity screening risks reproducing inequality by rendering some needs invisible. The session concludes by advocating a rationalised approach to neurodiversity screening that retains the political value of neurodiversity language while reaffirming the importance of careful, ethical, and socially informed diagnosis as a foundation for equitable and neurotype-sensitive practice.