Eh, being neurotypical is overrated. Although staying upright and not falling down is not.
It was also probably too much to ask to have the instructor not a) make assumptions about everyone's fitness based on their appearance* and b) understand that not everyone in the class is a dude**.
* He asked me "what my training background was" which I just went ...wut? to, because trying to list the athletic endeavors I've done at least semi-seriously for any significant time would have taken longer than the workshop. I tend to go through sports like fandoms, lol -- a few that I have loved forever and keep going back to, a few that I get WAY INTO for six months to several years and then walk away from. And then I visibly saw him reconfigure his assumptions when I winced at one exercise, he made an "aww, it's OK, poor unfit person" face, and I nonchalantly said I'd toasted my quads doing hills the previous night.
** In two senses: the primary one being that how athletics are taught/promoted in the US is highly gendered -- he had us doing toe-touches but prefaced it by saying "now do dead lifts", which I've seen as a thing written down in workout plans that involves heavy weights, but I've never actually been shown what one is, and he assumed people did basically no core work, which most intro-to-workout plans for women stress heavily. Actually, even his opening question about "training" -- I associate that word with weight/bulking-up-strength type workouts, and am still not sure exactly what he would qualify for the term.
And secondly, a minor assumption about relative strengths of core and biceps for not-especially-fit people, which in my experience differs wildly between men and women and I assume it's both part socially based and part physiological (on average, obviously).
This entry was originally posted at http://antimony.dreamwidth.org/2783.html. Please comment wherever you prefer.