#because it is about a script for correcting ableism

[directactionforhope]

You know that annoying/ableist thing people do where they say that conservatives or bigots or assholes must have some disability or mental illness? E.g. "Those Trump supporters are all psychotic!" or "Racists are all brain damaged!"

I've found imho a pretty effective script for countering that without potentially Causing A Scene or getting someone mad at you:

Scoff lightly and say "Psychotic people deserve better than that comparison."

Also works for other stuff like "brain damaged" and "mentally ill" etc.

As long as you say it like you're joking with them, instead of like you're telling them off, I find it's pretty successful at getting people to go "Oh, hah, true" (tho sometimes a bit awkwardly) and then either self-correct or move on with the conversation.

[angelsinluv]

"i can't just get into the state."

"that's like telling someone homeless and broke to get into the state of already having a house and being rich. it's ableism, it's insensitive!"

...? i always see this type of complaint. that's what you always do and never see results. that's why shit is "so hard" for you because you do more complaining than you are trying.

you think it's impossible to get into a state, y'all say it's too hard to enter a state and feel as if you have money when you've never felt that way before, you say your depression gets in the way because you can't feel "happiness", you literally don't even try to persist in the state and say it's so hard. guess what you're manifesting? that it's hard for you. that's your state.

your head is so far up your ass, you miss the point every. single. time.

you think it's about forcing. forcing yourself to enter a state, to feel some kind of beyond this world happiness, did you forget that it's personal, that not every feeling will be the same every time you enter a state? that not everyone may feel the same things all the time? that sometimes it's relief that creation is done, excited, calm, nonchalance? did you forget that you have to persist so that it can feel natural despite your circumstances?

if you told me that you're manifesting money and i said to you that i have a million dollars and wanted your cash app to send you the money you desire, how would you feel? relieved that i granted you your wish? excited that you're going to get the money? nonchalant because that's how the law works?

imagination is literally always saying yes to you, the only person saying no is you. this is the same thing. your problem is that you're not trying, you're not persisting when imagination just always says yes. fulfill yourself constantly and stop giving up.

THERE ARE INFINITE STATES.

the wish fulfilled is your goal, the state you should be returning to, to make it dominant — not hold.

the wish fulfilled means creation is done. that depending on what you like to think is:

KNOWING it will come or you ALREADY have it.

JUST DO IT.

it's that simple. not easy for you yet but simple. why are you making it so hard for yourself? all that for what? you know that are DIFFERENT ways to enter a state? if "just entering" isn't natural enough for you yet, you know techniques exist right? affirming, visualizing, scripting, sats, fun methods you see online? oh right... you probably forgot because your ass gave up at the first try because you couldn't feel some "universe high vibration feeling 🤩"

like are you done complaining yet? are you sick of your shit yet? cut the bullshit and persist.

and it's not ableism either. no one is telling you shit's easy for everyone, no one is saying that "just entering it" is the only and correct way. there is no trying. do it and persist. you can do it.

the only reason why you can't is because you say so.

[thelegendofmik]

Stop Defending Ableists Challenge (Level: Impossible)

So the other day I made a post listing all the ableist things Jacob Richmond has included in Legoland and Ride the Cyclone.

And the response was abysmal - the amount of "well actually..." kind of responses I got was disgusting and I took down the post because I find it counterproductive to argue with teenagers on the internet. However, I stand by the belief that if you think you are old enough to post publicly on the internet, you are old enough to be held accountable for what you post.

But I think what I had to say was quite important, so I am going to reword it here.

TW here for the discussion of ableism and ableist slurs (they are all censored)

There is ZERO (0) justification for the use of THREE (3) ableist slurs across both works. I don't fucking care if it was the 2000's. The ADA predates both shows and disability activism had existed for decades before that (as yannick very kindly reminded me). So no, it was not ok for Richmond to use those slurs in his works, regardless of the time period. Because there is nothing "correct" (politically, or otherwise) about ableism.

And before you say "Oh, but it was the character who said it, not the writer..."

CHARACTERS ARE NOT SENTIENT BEINGS! They are not created in a vacuum. Their thoughts and actions are often a reflection of the author's own beliefs and morals.

It was not Ocean who decided to use the word cr*pple. It was Jacob Richmond who decided to use it. Same with the r word and sp*z in Legoland. It wasn't Penny and Ezra who decided to use those words, it was Jacob Richmond. Because each character's actions are dictated by the decisions that the author makes for that character. And in this case, the author decided to be an ableist asshole.

Yes, characters can be assholes. They can be complex and nuanced beings. But there are better ways to portray such experiences than being violently ableist (i.e.: without using slurs). And why does the ableist character get complexity and nuance, but the disabled character is simply the sad, disabled kid, with not much else in his personality until he magically becomes abled bodied. Like we deserve nuance and complexity as well, people!

In a 2022 interview with Curtain Call Bway (here), when asked who his favourite character to write was, Richmond responds with the following:

Ocean is definitely my favorite character to write because it’s based on certain people I’ve met and certain aspects of myself too.

Like he literally admits it himself, that his decisions when writing an ableist character were based off aspects of his own personality.

The reality is, disability has never been more than a comedic plot point to Richmond. He has never cared about portraying a realistic disabled experience. He has never cared about disabled people.

And the cherry on top is that his response to yannick-robin being hate-crimed was to rewrite Ricky so that he could be played by an abled and therefore production teams wouldn't have to give a shit about ensuring their spaces are safe and accessible for disabled performers. If he actually cared about disabled people and properly representing our experiences, he would have worked with a disability consultant and fixed the issues within the show. Instead, he doubles down and causes even more harm.

To add insult to injury, he then licensed that script to Sarah Rasmussen and her team of ableist cronies for the DC production. Because him choosing to continue working with Rasmussen and her team just shows that he shares the same ableist values as the McCarter/Arena team.

So by saying that "its the character, not the author", you are defending Richmond and his violent ableism. You are attempting to justify the harm he has done and CONTINUES TO DO to disabled people. YOU. ARE. A. PART. OF. THE. PROBLEM.

Ride the Cyclone and Legoland (in ALL its forms and versions) contains so much ableist violence. This violence has traumatised REAL PEOPLE, but yannick, myself, and other people speaking out are the ones ruining the vibe by calling it out? Be fucking for real people.

Now if only my university papers were this thorough...

[apollos-boyfriend]

yeah, i got you. this is likely the only comment about this i'm going to respond to, largely because i know people Do bring up things that aged poorly, and despite disliking the man, i dislike people who use those arguments more.

i do not think matpat is a bigot. i think he is a white man who was raised in a privileged position, and because of that, there are many instances where he is not as knowledgeable/ignorant, as opposed to maliciously bigoted. with that said, here's a handful of things he's done that has made people dislike him:

consistent misgendering of nonbinary characters, including frisk, chara, and kris from deltarune (they/them), hollow knight characters (they/them + it/its) and evil x from hermitcraft (he/they). when he was called out for his utdr-related misgenderings, he did not correct himself, and continued using he/she pronouns for the characters.

blamed etika's suicide on cancel culture (2019). the tweet is still up, and you can see multiple people close to etika responding and chiding him for making such a claim.

plagiarized theories. while he has a writing staff alongside himself, it could be said that his co-writers plagiarized, not necessarily him, he himself has confirmed he touches up and reads over every script. this reddit post covers his stealing of the evil x hermitcraft theory, with links for further plagiarism near the end.

a lot of his theories are disproved by canon. i'm not a fan myself, but from what i've heard, his hollow knight theory in particular can be debunked not even ten minutes into the game (apparently during its opening scene?), and his fnaf theories are all over the place. he presents them all as the logical conclusions, when most couldn't be far from the truth. while there's nothing wrong with making crack theories and playing around, the way he's built his brand, his words are taken as fact. someone as big as him has to be aware of what influence they may have, and how their followers tend to take their word as fact.

EDIT: he also has a history of demonizing/misrepresenting mental illness, as seen with his misrepresentation of DID in a more recent argwilbur theory. i can't check right now, so take this with a grain of salt, but someone has also mentioned ableism being present in his encanto theory

matpat is to fnaf theorists what freud is to psychologists.

[kajaono]

300 is like the script author and the art director got high in a museum, surrounded by Roman Marmor sculptures, and romantizied painting about the Roman Empire painted in the 16th century and decided to make a movie

Then they added a few REALLY famous Hollywood actors, a lot of naked men, a bunch of color correction, a few arthouse vibes and called it a day

Just because it looks epic doesn’t make it an epic movie. Compared with that…. Gladiator was a masterpiece

And the villain is queercoded of course.

Men really watch that and call it the greatest movie ever made?!

Edit: and don’t get me started on the racism and ableism. I honestly consider stop watching this movie…

[neon-moon-beam]

Please Be Careful About How You Portray Submas

This is a longer post, but I didn’t feel there was a way to make it shorter. I divided it up by sections in the hopes that this makes it easier to read.

I also want to make the following clear:

This post is not exclusively about, but does delve into the headcanon that Ingo and Emmet are autistic. I myself am neurodivergent, but not autistic. My roommate is autistic and is the author of this post (which you should read if you haven’t already as it will add more context to mine). I have run this post by and taken input from her, as well as other autistic people, because I do not want to speak over or for people, nor do I want to offend anyone. If I have made a mistake, it was not my intention and I will do my best to learn and correct it.

I am also not calling out or attacking anyone; I deliberately made descriptions of art or posts vague as to not make anyone feel singled out. I’m not here to attack anyone, but rather bring up issues I’ve seen in earlier Submas content that seems to be repeating itself.

Bl*nkshippers dni--I will block you.

Under a cut for length as well as possible warnings for ableism, stigma towards mental illness, and descriptions of depictions of violent fanart.

Problematic Art In The Early 2010s

Anyone who was in the Submas fandom in the early 2010s, or anyone who has been part of the fandom before the content primarily became PLA angst knows a lot of the earlier fan content was…not good. Bl*nkshipping was a persistent problem, but there were a lot of other Submas depictions ranging from bizarre to violent, to some that were downright ableist (which Emmet almost exclusively bore the brunt of), though at the time the fandom did not widely adopt the now-popular headcanon that Ingo and Emmet are autistic. Somehow back then, only Emmet got treated as such without anyone ever suggesting he was autistic, often with Ingo in a caretaker role. Most likely a lot of people thought they were depicting him cutely, with him being “childlike” or whatever it was they intended. But if you’re on the spectrum and see yourself in Submas (like my roommate) or have context (like I do), certain art of Emmet from that era comes off as ableist. Art like this was fairly common and portrayed Emmet as sort of a “child in an adult’s body” or as someone who “never grew up”, all common autistic stereotypes. Emmet was sometimes depicted in ways that suggested he had higher support needs but only when artists wanted him to be “cute”. If he was depicted (accurately) as someone with higher support needs, that would be one thing. Instead he was depicted as essentially neurotypical by an artist until they wanted him to be “cute”. Then it would switch to him appearing to have higher support needs, often accompanied by a tired or annoyed Ingo helping him. And ironically as identical twins, if Emmet is autistic, there’s almost no chance Ingo isn’t.

Back in the early 2010s along with these ableist depictions of Emmet, there was also a fair amount of art from people who decided he was somehow creepy and violent. Maybe it was the perpetual smile and his “odd way of talking” (which has been interpreted by many as him scripting), both of which can, and have been seen as autistic traits. It might have also been the idea that Emmet being “childlike and innocent” was a cover for something horrible. Whatever it was led to a lot of images of Emmet wielding weapons (most often giant scissors or a chainsaw) and splattered in blood. Sometimes Ingo got this treatment alongside Emmet, or else was depicted as one of Emmet’s victims (or his sole victim). This is also ableist and stigmatizing towards those with mental illness(es). While there has been a bit more acceptance in recent years, there are still attitudes that mental illnesses are “scary” and that people with them are dangerous, particularly ones with difficult to treat or misunderstood symptoms (despite research showing such people are more likely to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators). This art of Emmet as unhinged and violent contributed to the stigma many people face.

What does this have to do with art today, and PLA?

I don’t venture into the Submas tags much at all because I’m not a fan of the angst that seems to be a majority of the content right now, and I’m personally not really a fan of alternate universes/crossovers when it comes to them, and prefer to stay out of headcanon discussions. That being said, I’ve ended up seeing some things that are veering a bit too close for comfort to the problematic art of the 2010s. I’m seeing a lot of art of “unhinged” Emmet or “Emmet fights god” that comes too close, but there’s also ones where he’s still in Unova on the Subway, ready to snap or seeming to take his pain at Ingo’s disappearance out on anyone who happens to be the final straw. If you think that Ingo has been missing from Unova for some time rather than he arrives back at the exact moment he was taken from, then naturally Emmet is going to be experiencing some very strong, very negative emotions. But there’s an appropriate way to depict Emmet experiencing these things, and then there’s ways that go too far and end up being ableist and/or insensitive.

As a bit of a side note, I’ve also seen people tagging their art, posts, or even reblogged posts about Submas with things like “he is babey”. Ingo and Emmet are adult men. Tagging adults with this (and especially when done with real people rather than characters) is infantilizing and can come off as ableist, especially towards neurodivergent people who are often infantilized online and offline. I’ve also seen people delighting in the idea of Emmet being “deranged” or “unhinged” or “crazy” in their tags, which is another form of ableism, perpetrating stigma towards mental illness (specifically by romanticizing or even fetishizing it). The neurodivergent community, and people with mental illnesses are seeing these things, and for many of us, they hurt. Even if you yourself are part of these communities, just because it doesn’t bother you doesn’t mean other people can’t be bothered by it, and whatever your intentions are, often times these things perpetrate the stigma these communities are fighting to end.

Another thing I’ve noticed is Emmet is nearly exclusively being depicted as unhinged, which is reminiscent of early 2010s art depicting Ingo as the stable, “mature” one, and Emmet as unstable, a “perpetual child”, etc. When you consider that Emmet has more obvious autistic traits, this looks very ableist. I’ve seen interpretations of Ingo being “feral” as a result of him living in Hiusi (especially in art that depicts him living in the wild with Sneasler), but mostly these do not go as hard as people go in making Emmet unhinged, traumatized, and out for revenge. Then add in art where Emmet is mentally unwell and physically attacking Arceus or Volo, or taking his frustration disproportionally out on people and Pokemon around him, and it feels as though we’re coming full circle.

So are all depictions problematic?

Absolutely not! Obviously not every depiction of Submas as autistic or having a mental illness is ableist, stigmatizing, or offensive. If you’re basing your content off your own experiences, most likely it’s OK. What it really comes down to is why and how you’re depicting them this way.

Let’s say you depict Emmet needing help completing basic tasks. Is this about an actual headcanon you have? Have you researched this topic if it’s not based on your own experiences? Or is this about depicting Emmet as “cute” or “vulnerable”, and does Ingo also need help, or does this depiction serve simply to play up Ingo’s role as “responsible” or as a caretaker? Or are both of them in need of help from a third party simply to be “cute”?

Or let’s say you decide to make a comic in which Emmet has an unhinged villain arc. Is Emmet going too far just for the sake of making him look as unhinged or unwell as possible?

If your end goal is simply to use illness or disability to make characters look cute, to build up or contrast another character who interacts with them, or simply to fuel angst or a desire to see someone “lose it”, you probably need to examine your work and think about why you've chosen to use these things as plot devices, especially considering that this depiction can be harmful to neurodivergent and mentally ill people.

It’s important that you make sure your depiction of Submas (or any other characters for that matter) are NOT ableist or perpetrating stigma. My guess is the art from the 2010s was mostly unintentionally so; it’s likely the artists were just ignorant of the issues they were perpetrating, and some maybe just ran too wild with interpretations or jokes about Emmet being scary. It’s easy to get into a feedback loop when you have other fans and artists supporting a particular interpretation. After all, things the fandom widely accepts such as Emmet breeding Joltiks or stealing Ingo’s pudding started out as someone’s interpretation and others ran with it. It doesn’t take very long to Google information you would need to write or depict a convincing but not inappropriate or ableist depiction. You can find  sources covering the topics you want to write about or depict, including people’s personal accounts (just don’t use info from organizations that speak over and actually harm the people they claim to be “helping”). You can also ask people about their experiences, but just be aware that people are not obligated to tell you their personal information or educate you, so if someone declines you need respect that.

So what can be done if I see this happening?

Here are some suggestions on handling these things. This is by no means exhaustive.

I’ve seen someone make ableist or stigmatizing content. What do I do? Here’s a basic outline if you feel like contacting them, but remember, you don’t have to if you don’t feel comfortable or safe. You’re not obligated to step in and educate others: 1. Be nice and polite. Coming off as reactionary is a good way to make someone defensive and not listen to you.

2. Avoid attacking them personally. Making mistakes does not mean someone themselves is ableist. As much as there has been more acceptance and education recently, there is still a long ways to go. There’s a chance they didn’t realize their content came off that way.

3. Explain why the depiction is problematic, and if possible, link to a source explaining it as well. Example: “Ingo drinking out of a mug that says ‘OCD should be CDO so the letters are in the correct order’ is an inaccurate and harmful joke about OCD. Here is a link to how the Just Right subset of OCD actually works, if you want to portray him having OCD more accurately.”

4. Avoid messaging them over and over, or having other people message them, making callout posts, etc.

 But what if they don’t think there’s a problem, get nasty, or continue with problematic depictions? Or what if they’ve already had others tell them about the problem and they have no intent to stop?

At this point, there isn’t much that can be done. It can be hard to accept someone doesn’t want to hear you out, understand there’s a problem, learn, or change what they’re doing, but sometimes it happens. The best option is to remove yourself from the situation, block them, and move on. If the content actually violates the terms of service of the site it’s being hosted on, you can report it. You can also report them if they start harassing you.

 I’ve read this or other people’s concerns and think I’ve made ableist or stigmatizing content, or someone told me I did, what should I do?

First of all, apologize. Hear the other person/people out if someone has contacted you.

Second, don’t beat yourself up about it, especially if you genuinely didn’t know, and don’t take someone pointing something out to you as a personal attack. Just because you’ve made a mistake doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.

Third, educate yourself on the issue and take steps to do better. Adjust the parts of your content that were problematic, or start over if you need to. Apologies don’t go very far if you don’t change your behavior.

Thank you for reading my post. I know it was long and different from the content I usually post, but I wanted to address these issues as a fan of Submas who also happens to be neurodivergent.

[astramthetaprime]

I’ve Just Got That Face

“You do NOT have Autism, you’re an Introvert.”  

Such comforting words, coming from a cousin I probably held as a baby.  

It’s truly the first time I’ve had to confront blatant, in-your-face ableism.  And she insisted on this even after I’d told her I’ve been professionally diagnosed and can show her my scores on two of the primary tests used by those professionals to diagnose ASD.  Incidentally I also took the Aspie Quiz during that round but I didn’t include it in my post because it’s so granular that the post would have ended up being thousands of words and nobody ain’t got time for that.  The RAADS and CAT-Q were enough to prove my point.  I’ll cover the Aspie Quiz at a later date.

Which did absolutely nothing to convince my cousin.  

Given my problems in talking face to face with people, I stumbled and stuttered through whatever it was I said to her in answer.  Honestly it just hit me so hard, getting outright negation from a member of the family.  She wasn’t just going to ignore it like everybody else, she outright denied it.  

My relationship to my family is complicated.  As they’re really the only people I have extended contact with on anything like a regular basis, I mask like Tony Stark in the Hulkbuster suit.  But this particular cousin I rarely see, really only at Thanksgiving / Christmas.  So since I realized she likely hadn’t heard about it I mentioned I’d been diagnosed as Autistic.  And got the above reaction.  

There was an argument, which I am bad at.  I have real problems talking face to face with people if the conversation is not predictable.  I used to be a window clerk when I was working for the Postal service, and that was easy enough since it’s largely scripted.  People are there to get stuff done, they’re not going to be sitting around arguing at you, so to speak. But realtime, fraught communications?  Can’t think past my nose.  So it didn’t go well.  

But this was my first encounter with actual ableism directed specifically at me.

To be fair, she did come apologize to me afterward, when I was gathering up my stuff to leave.  I actually got on my Tumblr here and read her the scores.  I need to scan in my diagnosis letter as well, so likely will do that this weekend.  But I did after the fact show her the actual scores from actual ASD diagnosing questionnaires.  

No idea if it will change any minds, but ya know, I believe in data.  

What she said, it doesn’t change what I am.  I can’t un-be Autistic.  If all it took was her unbelief to correct 53 years of failed relationships, perpetual misunderstanding, endless alienation, and all the botched interactions... well, she’d be the richest woman in the United States, I reckon.  

But if I didn’t have autism, I wouldn’t have the universe in my head.  I wouldn’t have the graceful turning of rotating habitats, the deadly glow of supernova remnants, the deceptive serenity of Neptune’s racing depths, or any of the characters that have come out of my hands all these years.  All these imaginary people that have kept me company in this empty life. 

So yeah.  Thanksgiving in the South, y’all.  One hell of a good meal, it’s the conversation afterward that’ll ruin your day.  

[thelongestway]

#the best part is how often they get mad because you did in fact explain something they didn't understand and it stings their pride lmao#it's not even a matter of being Corrected they just can't handle being reminded they don't know everything#and that the skills you've had to develop to make sure they never actually have to think about what they're doing and how they communicate#might actually be something Useful or Admirable in any way but Making Up for Your Deficiencies#because they see *you* as deficient and inferior for having weak points they don't; and are very invested in that being the case#and they get real fucking mad when they think you're flipping that script#and not only calling them subhuman instead; but straight up proving that they are lmao#you're the one slamming your dick in a car door by white-knuckling the belief that i'm not an actual human being or your equal bud! sorry!#not gonna feel bad for you about it!#ableism cw#traumatag

there are some autistic “traits” that people find really annoying but that are inherently kind

[outrunningthedark]

I like Chris and Buck's relationship but sometimes I side-eye the way that the show always has Chris taking care of Buck. For instance, the scene in 4x14 where Buck breaks down and Chris pats him on the shoulder and says it'll be ok. I wonder, would the writers have put the same weight and responsibility on an able-bodied child? Is the "Chris saved me more than I did him" narrative just well-disguised inspiration porn? These thoughts cross my mind but I don't know how correct they are, as I am able-bodied. Do you have any thoughts on this?

If y'all ever wonder why I keep trying to explain disabled life/ableism to you, it's because I get asks like this. Can we stop reducing the real life child with CP to "inspiration porn" when literally ONE episode of his entire character arc has focused on his disability? When literally ONE comment in the script has implied the character is always looking on the bright side? (And that comment was proved to be a severe miscalculation!) "...always has Chris taking care of Buck." There were two episodes where Chris explicitly "took care of Buck", and, funnily enough, those same episodes had Buck caring for Chris! Go figure! Kids Today - Chris is there when Buck is going through a rough patch mentally. "You're gonna be okay, kid." Then, Buck tries to SAVE HIM FROM A TSUNAMI. Survivors - "It's gonna be okay, Buck." You know why that moment matters? Christopher only started to (openly) worry about his father once Buck let his guard down. By allowing himself the opportunity to be vulnerable, Buck was showing Christopher that crying isn't a sign of weakness. Crying is a sign that you care. Who looked after Christopher while Eddie was in the hospital? Who fed him and made sure he got ready for school? As I recall, Buck took on Eddie's fatherly duties without even being asked. What about Christopher seeking comfort from Buck when he's missing his friends and family? Does that not count? Or how about Christopher wanting to hang out with His Buck before the tsunami while his father is working? And let's not forget Christopher asking Buck to spend CHRISTMAS together because Eddie won't be home. Oh! And! Did Buck not take care of Christopher when he helped Eddie build the accessible skateboard? Did Buck not take care of Christopher by hiring Carla to assist Eddie in getting Christopher whatever he needed to adjust to life in LA? ...Are we watching the same show?

[void-galaxy-shenanigans]

I can’t find the video but I remember enough to post about it anyway so here goes.

I was on TikTok awhile back. I’ve been on AutismTok since forever - it’s what led me to the test (RAASD-R) that encouraged me to research & realize my therapist was correct (that I’m autistic, not just ADHD). And one video in particular, it came across my FYP.

This is what I remember: “I told my father that people think I’m condescending to them, and he got really sad. He told me that my grandfather was also called condescending, but the interesting thing is my grandfather //didn’t// condescend to people. He was autistic, and he spoke to everyone the same, because he had trouble switching register—and yes, sometimes that meant he used academic language. But when my father was growing up, and he //did// condescend to people he thought were dumb, they no longer felt condescended to.”

(switching register has to do both with the tone you use (difficulty changing your tone/putting emotional inflection in your voice), the speed you speak at (we always talk fast), & your choice of words/type of language (informal v academic for example))

With that in mind...

The line “he had trouble switching register” because he’s autistic came back to me just now.

& I realized.

I have this “customer service voice” that’s higher pitched. It’s my “performing gender” voice, my feminine voice, my “happy” voice that I used to protect myself growing up - it’s a soprano 2 voice (if you know what I mean, fellow choir kids; for those who don’t know it’s the lower range of the high soprano). It’s the voice we spoke to everyone with. It was the shield so people didn’t realize I was trans, too.

But my normal voice, my real voice that I use when I’m by myself, it’s an alto voice (we were an alto 1 (higher low) & alto 2 (lower low) through the course of high school).

For some reason, my voice switches to the “customer service” soprano no matter who I’m with. If I speak, it happens. I have to painfully, consciously stop myself to speak naturally.

And I kept getting frustrated, like...‘¿why can’t I just “hi, my name is Stardust” in my normal voice? ¿Am I dumb? ¿Why isn’t this working? It should be simple. Just speak normal.’

And then it hit me, when that line came back. ‘He was autistic, so he had trouble switching register; he spoke to everyone the same.’

....It’s because we’re autistic. Our brain has trouble switching register.

So in order to speak lower, //we have to practice a lot//. We have to script it. We have to pre-prepare. If we practice enough, our voice will naturally stay there instead and not force us to jump up to that higher voice.

We started doing that on accident a bit ago, just to practice introducing ourselves, & it started to work a little - we can now speak lower around the employees where we get food, & in public in general. Still working on how to do that at work/jobs (especially interviews), but it’s progress.

And I’m now realizing it works because of that - as an autistic ADHDer, our brain needs to repeat it a lot first before it becomes natural.

We have to script it, to rewrite the script. Because we were masking.

And of course knowing that, we can be a lot gentler with ourselves. Our brain just needs time to rewrite the script, and that’s okay.

We learned that a higher voice with forced tone was safe, so people were less rude & condescending. If we just talk the way we normally do, lower pitched and mostly monotone (most of the time), people condescend/treat us like a stupid toddler (‘oh honey, no no no, that’s something babies know not to do 🥺😇’ (y’know, the dog-and-biscuit ‘I think you’re a dumbass’ tone)), and they bully us (for being slow, for not speaking normal, for stimming), & they just...generally treat us worse. Or straight up gave us the ‘I'm so sorry you exist... 🥺’ tone (like, the soft & sad way people speak around 💀 bodies). So we learned how to stay safe, how to mask. (/srs)

And learning to unmask is scary and lonely, but liberating. (/hopeful)

Internalized ableism is a bitch. 😕 (/frustrated at general society for the time we lost trying to mask)

~Nico

[fierceawakening]

http://fierceawakening.tumblr.com/post/176032366750/autism-dictionary

Yknow, I think reading this post just enlightened me about what the actual language mismatch might be in the empathy discussion.

The people arguing with me seem to be talking about something like what this list calls hyporesponsiveness. Something tragic happens to me and even though you’re my friend, you don’t react right away, because emotions are weird, especially when you’re ND. So you rely on scripts to comfort me, at least at first, until you have some time to think about what you think about me, my feelings, and the situation. But you’re still my friend—you just don’t react right away.

Where the thing i mean is less about immediacy or intensity of emotion (though I still have trouble wrapping my head around a complete lack of them.) it’s more about reciprocity.

I mean something like... whether these are the NT like parts of me or the ND ones or that question is meaningless, if I become a friend to you, I’m telling you that I’m invested in you in some way. If you’re suffering or elated, that’s going to matter to me, whether or not I’d suffer or feel elation in response to the same thing. Your perspective shows up to me somehow as a lens that matters. I want to understand it and, in a sense, share in it. I may not want to BE LIKE YOU, but the thing you are like is worthy, so I want to understand it and partake in your experiences.

So, when I’m looking for a friend, or even just to become closer with an acquaintance, I care about reciprocity. I don’t necessarily want the person to exactly match my level of investment. But if some dude breaks in and smashes my Transformers, I want your reaction to be more like “it must be terrible to lose your safety and your comfort objects in one blow” and less like “well, you don’t really need plastic. I don’t need plastic!”

So if you tell me, “before we become friends I need to inform you I have low empathy,” I’m going to be leery because I don’t know whether you mean “it might take me a minute to think through how you feelbecause I can’t read NT like expressions” or whether you mean “I’m going to be persistently confused by how you feel, but I want you to support ME, so I’ll do my best to make the socially correct noises.”

One of those sounds reciprocal to me and the other really really doesn’t, and I’m not at all convinced it’s prejudice/ableism that makes my reaction to the second person

“Sorry, I know we all need social ties in life, but I get the strong impression I’ll be putting in the lions share of effort in any relationship I have with you. That doesn’t seem fair to me. I hope you find what you’re looking for, though!”

[stormofstarlight]

Ok, after a rewatch I have more thoughts on this, and I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree with my original interpretation, but I think there's more nuance than I initially picked up on.

The giggle doesn't just make people say their real, most deep-seated opinions out loud, obviously. It makes them think their first impulses, snap judgements they make, are correct, no matter how irrational they are.

There's an adage about your first thought being a reflection of what you've been taught, and your second thought being what you really think. What the giggle does, is takes away people's ability to override that first, impulsive, irrational thought.

Kate trusts the doctor, obviously. But maybe there's a niggling in the back of her mind telling her that he's an alien, he's more powerful than us, if he chose to he could betray us at any time. She knows that won't happen, because she knows the doctor, but her knee-jerk reaction to aliens is probably something akin to that.

Her comment about Shirley is more like a reflection of what she's been taught about wheelchair users by the very ableist society we live in. She knows that thought is wrong, but the giggle takes away her ability to override it. Shirley knows that, since she tells Kate there's "absolutely no need" to apologise, because she knows that isn't Kate's real opinion.

The comment did make me upset to hear as a disabled person, and I still don't 100% like the way it was handled, but I've heard from other disabled people who think differently, and I don't 100% agree with my initial reaction either (yes, I'm aware of the irony of the situation).

I still think hearing that phrase come from the mouth of someone Shirley respects, whether it was her real opinion or not, would affect her more than was shown on screen. If the show is going to use statements like that in the script, I'd like them to explore in more detail about how ableism affects disabled people.

I really think Kate's comment towards Shirley shouldn't have been brushed over so quickly. The Toymaker's whole thing wasn't mind-control that made people say things they don't really mean, it made people believe that opinions they already held were 100% correct. That means that Kate does actually doubt how much Shirley needs her wherlchair. For me, that completely changes how I see her as a character, and I don't think her relationship with Shirley (even if it's just a working relationship) would realistically ever be the same again. For a disabled person, finding out someone you respect and trust doesn't want to make accommodations for you is actually devastating, and isn't something that can be forgotten about or ignored so easily. I really wish the show had addressed it in more detail if they decided to go down that route at all

[eeee-lye]

Advisory: I’m an autistic who gets sarcastic by the end of this post. I expect this means an Autism Parent will turn up at my door tomorrow and demand that I turn in my Autism Card, because I can’t possibly be properly autistic, like their kids, if I express my frustration at their ableism by using a literary device. Oh, note to self: write a sarcastically autistic character. I’m thinking a character who copes with allistic society by inventing and rehearsing sarcastic social scripts, with a group of other autistics of course, to explain their sensory needs to ignorant neurotypicals--

(Excuse me while I bolt for my keyboard.)

Anyway, while I still have my precious Autism Card, let me stand on a box and wave my hands at you while I speak.

It’s ironic that so many self-described Autism Parents are leaping in with “my kid is a person before she is autistic so don’t you dare use identity-first language to describe her” comments whenever an autistic person dares to say that, actually, the community more generally prefers identity first language in response to a person-first-using article or work.

Think about that. Autism Parents. Autism Parents put the autism first. Autism Parents, as opposed to autistics who are parents, put the autism first while not being autistic themselves.

Nobody corrects this to the real person-first language version: “person with allism who is a parent of a child with autism”! No, it’s just Autism Parents, as though the parent is somehow defined by autism before they are defined by parenthood, no person reference necessary--almost as though they’re always implicitly a person and I’m not.

We have people who are literally claiming the identity-first language of a neurotype that isn’t theirs but enforcing the use of person-first language by another person of a neurotype that still isn’t theirs.

I prefer “autistic person” or just “autistic” because it’s fewer words (I never get to forget that the supposedly less-ableist “person first” constructions make me, a multiply disabled person, speak and type more words). But if I weren’t already a fan of identity-first language as a disabled-identifying autistic, I’d take it up in defiance to the Autism Parents who are allowed to be, unquestionably, identity-first with regards to an identity that isn’t even theirs while denying the actual people of that identity (autistic folks) the same right.

It is telling, so telling, that people who have usurped identity-first language for themselves, who aren’t even of the identity to begin with, are forcing the rest of us to use person-first constructions to remind the world that we autistics are actually people.

So remember: we can’t call them “autism parents” because that’s identity-first language. If they don’t think it appropriate for us, how can it be appropriate for them? They’re people before they are allistic parents of an autistic child, and that must come first. The only acceptable term, therefore, is People With Allism Who Are Parents Of Autistic Children*. I’m sure they won’t consider it in any way ableist to use a construction that uses more words, and we people with disabilities can just write/speak the initials, so everybody wins.

It is clear to me, after seeing a few posts last night where PWAWAPOACs fought so hard to insist that person-first language is the only correct way to refer to a person who just happens to be autistic, that we can’t let PWAWAPOACs suffer the pain of enduring identity first language. They, who have done so much for we autistics, deserve to have their personhood celebrated and centred in their activism.

When a PWAWAPOAC comes onto an autism post insisting that we use person-first language, it’s the kind and just thing to offer them the same courtesy.

* In terms of parallel construction, it should be People With Allism Who Are Parents Of Children Who Are Autistic, but I’m not interested, even in jest, in using person-first in reference to an autistic person (who has not expressed a personal preference for person-first). I think there’s enough person-first usage in that dreadful initialism to make my point, yes?

[housexoxohearts]

30 Days of Autism Acceptance: Day 1

Prompt taken from the 30 Days of Autism Acceptance.

[ Image Description: Me and my cousin’s four-year-old daughter, who we’ve suspected is also autistic, perhaps with ADHD. I took this photo on my cell phone camera in the “self-we” style as we sat at a park bench. I’m a woman with metal-rimmed glasses and long dark hair. My niece (as I call her) is a little girl with brown hair tied back into a ponytail with a pink hair tie. We’re both wearing black shirts. We’re both smiling, enjoying our family vacation, posing for a picture. End Description. ]

The name I go by is Michaela Hearts. You can call me Mickey, Mick, or anything, really. I'm currently 24 years old, but I'll be 25 in June. And, as many of you know, I'm autistic.

Be warned, content ahead is a long read, and contains mentions of Autism Speaks, the cure rhetoric, ableism (from the world and internalized), bullying, and abuse.

I was professionally diagnosed at the age of three and 3/4 years, in the year of 1997. Apparently, I had always displayed a lack of interest in social interactions, and was hardly verbal until the age of 5. I would often play by myself, and in repetitive fashion. My father recounted the days I would strip dolls down and wrap them in washcloths, unwrap them, and repeat this sequence for long stretches of time, all the while so engrossed with such activities that I wouldn’t interact with anything else. I was hardly affectionate with my brother or my cousins, in spite of their warm friendliness and interest in playing with me. I ignored my oldest cousin’s (the mother of the little girl in the photo, heh) outstretched arms for a hugs for a very long time. (At some point, though, I eventually gave in, but not without an irritated sigh, lol.)

The diagnosing doctor explained autism to my parents in a way that broke down all expectations that I could ever live independently, or make anything of myself. My parents tried to work around these expectations placed on me and my brother (who would later be diagnosed with Asperger’s), but it was difficult. I wouldn’t say it was because of us. No, not at all. This was the age, after all, during which detrimental misinformation about autism was spread. And, with hardly any other resources at hand, my parents unfortunately fell into the collective misconception that their children’s autism was the result of heavy-metal poisoning from a serum found in vaccines, the fixed capacity of autistic functioning (functioning labels), and---worst of all---that our autism was a sickness that could be treated (or cured) with organic changes to our lifestyle.

I say that, though I’m fortunate enough that nobody in my family has been subjected to Bleach Therapy. Though my parents were convinced that organic-restricted diets and special salt baths could “ease symptoms of autism,” they at least had common sense enough to not give us bleach. And they eventually stopped their “treatments” as we grew tired of these routines that didn’t at all make us feel good (not to mention, didn’t do anything with our autism).

Through all this, I never realized. I had no idea I was autistic. My parents never explained any of these concepts to me. Whenever I was troubled by bullies at school who targeted me for being “weird,” every adult simply reassured me that I was “unique.” Which, you know, that’s nice and all, but... It didn’t explain why I was like this.

It didn’t explain why certain smells---that almost no one else picked up on---hurt my head so bad and made my stomach churn. It didn’t explain why certain sounds pierced my ears and painfully traveled down my spine, which in turn made me want to scream and hurt someone to make the pain, and its source, stop. It didn’t explain my discomfort with physical acts of affection. It didn’t explain my lack of social energy, which kept me at home most of the time (and sometimes even looked like I didn’t care). It didn’t explain my scripts and echophenomena. It didn’t explain my hyperempathy that left me in tears whenever anything bad happened to anyone. It didn’t explain why I was so emotionally fragile and impressionable, not only remembering the horrible things that were said to me (even if someone else might have thought these things were benign), but internalized it all into adulthood.

“Unique” was a start, but it didn’t quite answer anything. Not in the way Autism did.

I found out when I was 12. People who know me know that this was the worst time of life, as I had struggles both at home and at school. All I will say, to keep from tangents, is that my hyperempathy made me hurt the way my cousin (younger sister of the photographed little girl’s mother) did, and terribly. And it didn’t help that I had absolutely no friends at school. The friends I had were all fed up with my odd---and I guess disgusting---habits, and so distanced themselves from me. Everyone else found reasons to belittle me. Some acted like accidentally touching me had infected them with some terrible disease.

I knew there was something “wrong” with me.

My parents took my brother and me to a group program called Progressive Resources (which I had suspected, and now confirmed, is affiliated with Autism $peaks). I just knew it as “Group,” the place where we went to play and “learn social skills” while our parents talked about how much they hated us. (That was the way I described it, anyway, at a time when I had become numb to the thought of my parents’ disappointment in me.)

Because of all the toys we could play with, I thought it was fun, so I brought my hurting cousin with me one day. She didn’t like the structure of it, and commented on how infantilizing and demanding it was. That’s when I started to put two and two together; me being treated like a kid here, surrounded by “R*tards” (nonverbal people, people with special interests that are associated with very young children’s entertainment, people with audibly disabled voices) had something to do with my bad treatment at school. They hated me because I had been lumped up with these people.

So I lashed out. At my parents, my aunts and uncles...

Eventually, it got to the point where I said terrible, horrendous things about one of the clients at Progressive Resources (things I can’t repeat). My mother had been struggling to figure out what to do about my sudden burst of rebellion, but that was when I guess everything stopped for her. She was just about to get into the car when she heard the ugly things I said about the other client. She gave me one of the most serious looks I had ever seen on her and said,

“You’re autistic, little girl.”

My thought process stopped dead in its tracks. Having internalized ableism over so many years with horrible media depictions, “Awareness Campaigns,” and hearing the ugly things said about neurodivergents, I took this as an insult. Autism for me was an insult. So I protested, to which she provided my story.

“You didn’t talk until you were 5. You wouldn’t interact with anyone. We took you to a doctor---”

My attention span cut off from there. As much as I had internalized the world’s ableism, as much as I hated the concept of autism, it began to explain so much. It answered all the questions that “Unique” couldn’t. And yet, even with this realization, I can’t say I was happy about it. It was just a word to describe why I was chastised.

I hid in the attic for the rest of the day and marinated in my thoughts. I had to process every event that had taken place in my life. To this day, I can struggle from time to time to accept myself as I am. But from that day forth, I made the conscious decision to work with people just like me, other autistics. The following day, I made amends with the people I had before been antisocial with at PR, and was surprised at their forgiveness and eagerness to interact with me.

Though I was slowly beginning to crack under the weight of depression (from a lifetime of peer abuse, burden rhetorics, and my hyperempathy making me aware of all the wrongs in the world---with my hurting cousin as the window), I was even beginning to make friends. The initial shock melted into a deeper understanding of myself, and some very basic needs. There would be future struggles I wouldn’t take into consideration or realize until the present time, but I was starting to feel just a little bit better about who I was.

At the end of the story, I don’t want the idea that my parents were horrible Autism Parents to be taken. Yes, my parents had made some mistakes, and they let their misconceptions lead them into nasty territories with me. They just didn’t know what they were doing, and they had no means to correct themselves. Yes, a lot of their decisions have some lifelong consequences on me, but after I’ve worked so hard to make myself heard to them, they’ve finally opened their hearts. And while there’s still a lot that they don’t understand, they do understand that I am neurodivergent and mentally ill, and I need their support. They may not get it, but they do everything they can to support me, even going against past beliefs they had about me and the world.

But I realize that not everyone has this kind of support. There are people out there who can’t afford to can’t afford to get an official diagnosis, whether it be money for insurance, or the security of employment or within a household. To everyone who believes they may be autistic, but do not have it on an official medical document, I believe you too. And I love you. You are good and valid, and I hope for nothing but the best for you, even if it turns out you’re not autistic.  ♡

Mickey 💕 You❣

[flowisk]

Claptrap: A Somewhat Extensive Autistic Headcanon

aka the Autistic Claptrap Masterpost First off: my starting premise. My thoughts on Claptrap are that he is (accidentally) written as autistic, and the trait he exhibits as mockable and socially awkward are mostly autistic traits. Claptrap is written as a buttmonkey type of character, and the traits they use to write him are traits exhibited by autistic people. I don’t think this is on purpose, I think it is the sort of thing that happens when you have met autistic people in your life who you do not know are autistic. He is written to be the type of character who makes people socially uncomfortable. Unfortunately, as if often the case, what comes to mind when you look for those kinds of traits are autistic traits.  Now... > From Claptrap’s early beginnings in BLTPS, he is a character who is analyzed as having ‘something wrong with the way he thinks’. Angel and Jack both comment on this. Angel says ‘you can’t fight it, you have to work with it’ and Jack repeatedly lambastes and hurts Claptrap for not understanding things. In fact, the words used to describe Claptrap by characters confirm he has a cognitive disability, a canonical learning disability. Angel discusses how you have to ‘work with his programming, not against it’. Karina, the leader of the town Claptrap set off the fireworks, tells Claptrap that ‘his heart is in the right place even if his brain isn’t.’ > He is a character everyone finds socially awkward, and has a difficult time being around. He is hyper loquacious, he doesn’t take proper breaks in conversation, he has a hard time recognizing when to stop talking. Claptrap is aware of his own social awkwardness, and comments on it. However, even though he is aware of his issues with communication (he knows he has a hard time reading people, and expresses this) he also doesn’t have any way to fix his issues with people. He can’t magically become better at social recognition, at saying the right things or responding in the correct way. Keep in mind, even in situations where it is dangerous for him to talk, and he was met with physical abuse, like when staying with Captain Flynt, he couldn’t resist asking questions and still couldn’t parse when was an appropriate time to talk or not. An incredibly unfortunate example of this is seen when Flynt plays old recordings of Claptrap and Flynt together. (Flynt: A few of your have asked me why I keep playing these pre-recorded messages on a loop. Well, I’ve got a great answer for you: a red-hot poker to the eye. Isn’t that right, Claptrap? Claptrap: IT WAS JUST A QUESTION, MISTER FLYNT!!) > Claptrap does not take ‘hints’ easily. When people are mean to him in BLTPS, he assumes that they are his friends regardless and this is their way of expressing that even if he doesn’t understand it. He has a hard interpreting people’s words beyond face value. > Claptrap overshares, all the time, and lacks the capability to filter what he should or should not share. He talks about how he has he has an issue with his central processor that makes him share what’s on his mind. He has a hard time not talking. Even when he tries to give the player silent treatment, he can’t stop talking. > Claptrap’s model in-game is characterized by stimming, and repetitive motions and behaviours. In fact, more than other character’s idle motions are! Most characters idle motions are pretty still for the most part, aside from the BL1 crew. If you stand in front of Claptrap in Bl2 he is always rocking back and forth (vestibular stimming). If you meet him in Bl1 he is always volunteering to dance, and he continues to beatbox in BL2 repeatedly as a sound he likes. These are all very stimmy things. Also, if you’ve ever played the Poker Night game with him, he is always humming and moving in that even while sitting. He does a lot of audio stimming. In Poker Night 2 he even mentions playing kitten videos on his other processor while playing the game. > Repetitive vocalizations: tendency to repeat things, especially dubstep. His dubstep is so common you’d be hardpressed to find a form of media he’s in that doesn’t reference how he does it/can’t stop doing it at least once. > He has a loud voice, tonal issues and is designed to lack inflection. His voice doesn’t convey what he’s feeling. Although it’s a feature of ‘design’, it could be argued all Claptraps represent the same issues/are designed to be autistic. At large, they are considered imperfect: loud, klutzy, and incapable of providing the social finesse they are built for. > Which, speaking of, Claptrap is klutzy. He has some issues with motor control. > Claptrap appears to have executive dysfunction issues which is where a lot of anger in the series directed at him comes from, and a lot of how he fails to live up to what people want from him. Claptrap performs poorly. Partially because of the social aspect, and partially because Claptrap has issues following commands and remembering things, cognitive isues with details. Noteably, we have his flashback of what went wrong with the fireworks. There was no malice on his part. He couldn’t remember. Claptrap messes up orders, commands, instructions giving, many of these things a lot of the time, and none of it is on purpose. > Issues with emotional regulation: Claptrap cries a lot. Noteably, he isn’t always aware of it - ‘am i leaking?’ and he doesn’t always know why he’s doing it. > There are autistic people who rarely use gestures, and then there’s autistic people who use lots and lots of gestures. Claptrap is the second. Always using his hands in big exaggerated motion. > Claptrap’s communication issues are bad enough that he is ostracized in the communities he enters for it. This is partially because Claptrap is a tool and non person already to most people, but (worse) he is seen as a dysfunctional tool and non person > One of the most consistent characteristics about Claptrap is that he is impulsive and has issues with long-term planning. When Claptrap receives money, when Claptrap launches attacks, he immediately blows money or is making things up on the spot as his plan unfold. > Claptrap uses social scripts that he applies to all situations. An example of this is shown in Poker Night 2, ‘don’t look at the money or it’ll think you’re a creep’. Claptrap appears to have social scripts he follows for all situations regardless of context. > Socially inappropriate statements: many. > Unusual sense of humour. Claptrap has a tendency to over explain his jokes in case people don’t get it. He’s also pretty rigid about why his jokes are funny or aren’t. He will explain puns to someone to show why they’re funny and why someone should be laughing at them because they hit the checkpoints of humour. > Autism is characterized both by high empathy and low empathy depending. Claptrap has pretty high empathy - so much that he is very sensitive to other people’s loneliness, and it is in fact his biggest fear. Other people’s loneliness is in fact a greater fear for him than his own loneliness. He also has moments where he experiences low empathy, where he is out of step of the emotions of the people around him and reacts insensitively. > Very trusting in other people and believes others have good intentions (at first - we see Claptrap become more distrustful of people due to the fact people often have very bad intentions concerning him). Often leads to exploitation, as in Claptrap’s case.  > Sensory seeking - dude seeks out stimulating environments, sounds, noises and textures in many ways. Even in that early quest with the soft bullymong fur. I also found someone who wrote an interesting thread on Steam about the genocide of the Claptraps and related ableism here: check it Also relatedly, look at this art of this inspiring Claptrap: x And this one: x

[heliza24]

I agree that the girls do have a genuine friendship with Sara, which is nice to see. But they’re also consistently oblivious about their class and nondisabled privilege, and subject Sara to a ton of microaggressions. Through a lot of season 2 I see her trying to perform this balancing act- how do I survive this world where I have less money, where I can’t always read the arcane social cues and traditions, while maintaining these friendships? She’s trying so hard to be a part of the group, to not be singled out as someone who can’t keep up with Hillerska expectations. I think in a weird way this is why she connects with August. Because he’s honest with her about the guilt he feels she can be honest with him about how she has also often been made to feel like a bad person for not fitting in. There’s a lightness to their scenes together because of that; she lets down her guard with him. So the explosion at the end is devastating because she loses her group of friends, sure, but it also represents the shattering of this careful image she’s worked so hard to maintain. Plus she’s lost the space with August where she felt less of a need to mask.

It’s not surprising to me that the girls turn on her so hard. Stella and Frederika don’t even know about the video, and they’re ready to fully renounce Sara based on her dating Felice’s ex. When someone is already different it only takes one infraction (that they might have worked through with someone they felt was more like them) to warrant expulsion from the group.

Some of the examples in the above post are good examples of friendship, but a lot of them read more like microaggressions that Sara has to navigate to me. That scene where Stella is talking about sending nudes, for instance. They’re talking about the valentines ball, and Sara is asking what kind of letters people send. Stella tells her that if she wants someone’s attention, she should send a nude. It’s a joke, but Stella says it totally deadpan. If Sara were to actually follow this advice unwittingly, it would have horrible social consequences- just look what happened to Simon, and even to Felice when she is caught with Wilhelm. But you can tell Sara can’t pick up the irony in Stella’s voice, and she asks more questions. Stella starts doubling down, and it’s still a joke to her- how could Sara be so naive as to not know what she’s talking about? You could read different levels of friendly teasing vs malice in that interaction, but it doesn’t feel purely friendly to me. Fortunately Frederika does intervene in that moment and tells Sara it’s a joke, but now Sara has so much to sort through. Were they really totally kidding, or are nudes kind of expected in sexual relationships at school?

In the queen etiquette scene, Sara is practicing scripting, a technique that’s going to help her navigate an unfamiliar social situation. When she asks Felice for confirmation that her script is correct, Felice rolls her eyes. When she practices smiling like the teacher suggests, Frederika and Stella laugh at her. They’re laughing because Sara’s smile is too wide to be socially acceptable, and because Sara doesn’t pick up on this fact. They’re laughing because this is old hat to them, and it’s weird that Sara hasn’t been around the queen before. They’re also laughing because the way she’s learned to navigate social interactions with her autism feels weird to them. That’s ableism and classism, all rolled into one.

Even when they give Sara a birthday gift, it come loaded with duties Sara isn’t sure she’s going to be able to fulfill. They all contribute to each others gifts, which means the next time it is someone’s birthday she is going to be expected to contribute money she doesn’t have to the pot. In order to get out of that expectation she would have to refuse the gift, and she can’t refuse the gift without jeopardizing the friendship. The other girls aren’t doing this to her intentionally, they just aren’t thinking critically about what Sara’s life is actually like. It doesn’t mean they aren’t true friends, but it does mean they’re acting carelessly.

I wish fandom would be more critical of the Manor House girls sometimes. They are really ignorant to a lot of what Sara is going through.

Sara & The Girls

One thing I love about season 2 is that we see that, when it really comes down to it, the girls like Sara. Outside of just Felice bringing her around, they really genuinely like Sara.

Madison gives up her room for her. She gives Sara crystals to ward off "bad vibes," she loans her clothes, and does her hair. She sits with her at meals and explains things to her. Fredrika, albeit a bit ditzy, tries to connect with her over the fact that she’s a “real virgin” and she thinks it’s cool to have one in the group. And then she offers to let Sara help with her horse Indigo, despite the fact that she doesn’t need extra assistance, just because she knows how devastated Sara must be about losing Rousseau. Fredrika even makes the effort to tell Sara not to listen or take Stella seriously when Stella is messing with her about the nudes. Early in the season we see Sara wearing one of Stella’s sweaters and the later in the season we see that Stella goes after her when she’s clearly upset about the horse thing. Stella also feels comfortable enough to tell Sara about what's going on with her and Fredrika. She could have left it at "you can't tell anyone," but she didn't. Stella chose to elaborate and trust Sara with the information that she loves Fredrika, that she's scared of what it means, that she doesn't want to ruin the friendship that they have.

The girls consistently throughout the season try to teach her about life at Hillerska both as a higher class citizen and just as a teenage girl - they talk to her about meeting the Queen but they also talk to her about sending nudes, making tik toks, and the Valentines Traditions that fall somewhere between the two worlds. They explain things to her, they tease her, they look out for her. They buy her a thoughtful birthday present, they try to make sure she’s comfortable with her initiation, they have spa nights, they walk with her to classes and sit with her in classes.

As soon as Sara broke “girl code” they all turned on her, sure, but even outside of Felice bringing her around, the girls just like Sara. They want her around. They turned on her because Felice was obviously hurting. They know Felice, they trust Felice, and if Felice is telling them Sara is a bad person, they're going to believe her. They've known her a lot longer. That doesn't take away from the fact that they did like having Sara around.

And that opens up an even bigger hole for Sara, because she hurt Simon and she hurt Felice, but she also just lost the trust of all of her friends - the first friends she’s ever made that genuinely like her.