ADHD and me

flock together; love each other (part 4)

When people called her out for being a hypocritical bitch, she just deflected criticism.

From my search through the comments, there are two major groups who put forward arguments in defence of Sia. The first are people who defend the portrayal of Neurdivergent people by Neutrotypical people 

Here the people try to defend the decision based on precedent. They are using this precedent and the popularity of those films as a stand in for authority on the portrayal of neurodivergent characters by neurotypical people. They understand that if these other films can be successes, then people (generally) don’t think this is an issue, and people who are mad at Sia are hypocrites because other films were popular. 

The second are similar. They are people who believe its unfair to judge a film’s merits before it is released.

These arguments seem to be based around the belief that the issue lies with the film itself and not how it is made. Or that the issues with how a film is made are forgiven if the film itself is good. 

The reason this is important is that both arguments miss the criticism entirely and feel more about stopping ‘cancel culture’ than actually caring about the film itself or the portrayal of neurodivergent people.

First: a history of films which have neurotypical people played by neurodivergent people does not mean that its okay now. At one level this ignores that criticisms that those films would have received at the time. But at another level, all it serves to do is silence the criticisms coming out now. It deflects the issue. We aren’t talking about Forest Gump, Rain Man or any of those films. We’re talking about Music and the way we know its portrayal has been handled. 

Second: People are not criticising the film itself, but how it is being made. In fact, it is clear neurodivergent people want this film to be a good and and authentic representation of autistic people. That’s why the criticisms are coming out in the first place. If people didn’t care, they wouldn’t say anything. But it is clear through the reliance on Autism Speaks for their research that very few or no autistic people were consulted for how best to go about researching the autistic experience. 

But these arguments still miss the point, and themselves are rooted in one core belief. And its the belief that is what people are upset about:

Stories about Autism by Neurotypical People are not for Autistic People

And its this which Sia is enabling by not only creating this film the way she has, but also defending it to the death. The people who are defending this film are those who were amazed by inauthentic stories of neurodivergent people which inspire wonder in people who don’t have to live with it. And those same people are hoping this film will do the same. 

If your moral high horse relies on standing on the bodies of the people you are supposedly supporting, then you’re not morally right at all. You’re using the symbolism of these people to put forward your own agenda. Get fucked.

Also, fuck Tay Zonday. 

[ID: First image is a chart describing four autism advocacy groups. The groups are Autism Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN), Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network (AWNN), Autism Speaks, and Autism Society. The questions on the side of the chart read, “Autistic Led? (Majority of board members are autistic)”, “Against abuse? (Clear stance against ABA and autism pseudoscience?)”, “Minority representation? (Has autistic people who are underrepresented?)”, “No stigma? (Does not use ableist language and symbols?)”, “Does not advocate for ‘treatments’ or ‘cures’ for autism?”, “Founded by autistic people?”, “Majority of funds go towards needs of autistic people?”, and “Should I support this autism organization?”. The columns for ASAN and AWNN meet all of the criteria and have checkmarks, but Autism Speaks and Autism Society meet none of the criteria and have X’s.

Second image is a tweet from Sia @/Sia that reads, “Grrrrrrrrrr. Fuckity fuck why don’t you watch my film before you judge it? FURY.”

Third image is a response from one of Sia’s supporters with names and icons blacked out. The first tweet reads, “Sia, ignore them please. Let them bark here. They are not worthy, they just love to hate, that’s all. Remember Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything! Focus on the Oscar you’ll win! Growing heart emoji” and the second tweet reads, “Btw, they WILL watch your movie at least out of curiosity. They will see how beautiful it is, they will see your soul, but they will never admit it!”

Fourth image is another response from one of Sia’s supporters with names and icons blacked out. It reads, “Why are people slamming her? Did they forget about Forrest Gump? Leo Dicaprio playing Arnie in WEGG [editor’s note: What’s Eating Gilbert Grape]? That Charlie and the chocolate factory kid is literally playing an autistic doctor right now. Cancel culture is so selective it needs a word bigger than hypocrisy.”

Fifth image is another response from one of Sia’s supporters with names and icons blacked out. It reads, “Not everything have [sic] to be a ‘woke’ moment. Forrest Gump is still the best movie about disabilities. The actor isn’t disabled yet it is beautiful..”

Sixth image is another response from one of Sia’s supporters with names and icons blacked out. It reads, “People coming for you and the movie is not out yet lmao loudly crying emoji”.

Seventh image is another response from one of Sia’s supporters with names and icons blacked out. It reads, “They do not know what they are saying. I have not seen it and with only the trailer it seems INCREDIBLE to me, honestly. They don’t know how to appreciate your talent red heart emoji”.

Eighth image is a response from Tay Zonday @/TayZonday that reads, “I am delighted that a creative effort is being made to represent Autism Spectrum Disorder. I think non-autistic talent like @/freddiehighmore can live neuro-diverse roles well. I am concerned that ‘Hollywood’ -style @/CSAcasting can favor art that affirms power over truth.”

Ninth image is two tweets from Sia @/Sia on Nov 20, 2020. The first reads, “I actually tried working with a a [sic] beautiful young girl non verbal on the spectrum and she found it unpleasant and stressful. So that’s why I cast Maddie.” The second reads, “I cast thirteen neuroatypical people, three trans folk, and not as fucking prostitutes or drug addicts but s as [sic] doctors, nurses and singers. Fucking sad nobody’s even seen the dang movie. My heart has always been in the right place.”

Twitter thread by user @felixmooreactor (Felix Moore)

The pretzel you have to contort yourself into to frame ‘autistic people act more morally than neurotypical people’ as a bad thing is truly mind-boggling.

[Title of the linked article: “Autistic People Care Too Much, Research Says”, the picture attached is of a hot pink knitted stuffed rabbit with a tiny donations jar  and text next to it that reads “Breaking news: Autistic people are too generous”.]

This kind of thinking is only possible if you start from a mindset of ‘if autistic people do it, it must be wrong’, which somehow gets you to the absolutely galaxy-brain take that it is…bad…to make moral choices at the expense of your own interests?? #ActuallyAutistic

Screenshot on the 2nd tweet of the thread:

Pathologizing Positive Human Traits “Because Autism”

The authors pathologize autistic participants for refusing to support a bad cause, essentially for not being as selfish as the non-autistic group:

“Here, we show that ASD individuals are more inflexible when following a moral rule even though an immoral action can benefit themselves, and suffer an undue concern about their ill-gotten gains and the moral cost.

- Hu et al. 2020″

Growth is about stretching, trying new things, and setting small, realistic goals for yourself, not picking a “good habit” you’ve decided you will be doing always and forever from now on. That’s not discipline. That’s pointless self-torture and unhealthy resistance to change.