Leave Grandin alone.

Look, we get it. You don’t like that she works with the meat industry (even though the work she does makes that industry just a little less awful). You don’t like that they had a neurotypical actor playing her (which is a damn valid complaint- I wish we had more autistic actresses). You really don’t like that they exaggerated how she talks (she does sort of talk like that, from what I’ve seen of her, and they got her visual thinking down perfectly, by her own admission). So, you know, you’ve got some legitimate complaints.

That said, this is Temple Grandin. The autistic community doesn’t have a lot of heroes. Amanda Baggs and the rest of the ND crowd are awesome, but the media doesn’t ever report on them. Grandin’s one of the only people we have who talks about autism and autism pride in public, and gets people to actually listen. I don’t think you understand how important that is, or how much it hurts us, as a community, when you tear her down and call her a murderer. We have less than 3% employment among adult autistics. We have quack doctors forcing harmful treatments on us. We have abusive therapies and institutionalization. We have a cure movement breathing down our necks not only trying to stop us from existing, but actively suing and censoring people who criticize them. We have a media that supports that curebie mentality. When we get someone who the media will listen to, who supports our right to exist, who champions our inclusion in the workforce, who provides a role model for autistic kids who’ve been told they can’t be anything, and you come along and knock her down because she does all these awesome things, these things that have a very real and important impact on our lives, by working with Cargill, that doesn’t help. Animal rights has enough advocates. We have one who the media listens to. One. It’d be really, really cool if you didn’t take that away from us.

(By the way, I apologize for the length of time it took me to approve and respond to your comment; as you can see, today is the first time I’ve updated the blog in more than three months.)

I note you continue to refer to autism as a disability. Many on the spectrum find the term “disability” to be quite offensive as we believe autism is a fundamental part of who we are and is no different to the way that homosexuality was once classed as a mental illness. I appreciate this is not the place to get into a debate on pro and anti-autism cures, but I ask you to respect the feelings of those in the autistic community and choose your words with more care in future.

As a vegan I save many animal lives per year. Thousands of animals after 10 years of veganism. To be an animal raised for food is probably the worst type of existence ever imposed on a living creature. Non-vegans can be incredibly cruel and heartless. Grandin even kills animals herself, says she gets a “rush” from it -gag- she eats animals too. This is total detachment from feeling for others, as far from love as you can get. More like sadism.

“I was like, I can’t believe this beautiful blond lady became me in the 1960s,” said the author and scientist, who originally envisioned Sigourney Weaver playing her. “And the thing that amazed me was that if you didn’t know that Claire was playing me and there was no credit, you’d never know it.”

I enjoyed this film very much. I’m writing a research paper for psychology class on Dr. Grandin and this is what led me to this forum.

Why not hire someone who has an intimate knowledge of the obstacles Grandin has faced, vs. someone who can only begin to imagine them? In an industry in which there are so few roles for autistic and otherwise disabled actors, why give one of the few roles literally written for an autistic individual to a non-autistic actor? As I said in the post, this is arguably akin to hiring a white actor to portray a person of color, and then outfitting her in blackface.

Hence my criticism of Danes’s acting (which doesn’t actually begin and end with Danes; based on the clips I’ve seen, the forced quirkiness in the film is also par for the course when depicting someone w/an intellectual disability or mental illness; it’s patronizing, e.g., “Look how special she is!”). Danes’s “autism” is at best a pale imitation of what she thinks those w/autism think, feel and experience. I suppose you could say this of all acting, but I think it takes on a whole new meaning when you’re “faking membership” in a marginalized, misunderstood and oppressed sub-group, particularly when it’s one to which you can/will never belong.

If this makes me “ignorant” and “stupid” in your eyes, so be it. I have more than explained myself, and anything further would be belaboring the point.

(BTW, popping up on a stranger’s blog to call them “ignorant” and “stupid” – and to dismiss the blog and blogging itself as “silly” – counts as trolling in some circles. Doubly so when done anonymously. It also begs the question, if this blog is so “silly,” why waste your time posting multiple comments on it?)

A reader is a reader. 20 years ago I would have walked into my library with a key word written in an index card: “Temple Grandin”, I would have come across your entry in some sort of periodical or microfilmed magazine. A subject (in this case a person) is best learned about in all its lights, right? I would have gone on to read yours thanks to the freedom of publishing this country enjoys. Do not call me a troll as if reading different perspectives is some sort of exclusive club.

The difference 20 years ago and the bulk of my point? Writers had more respect for the context their topics were written in. You would have looked into Autism for your preparation for writing (not to mention watched the actual film). Cross referencing, peer review, editors, the ignorant comments on her portrayal would be edited in order to clarify your purpose. But the public is now your second pair of eyes. It’s neat really, the thought of this collective knowledge and ability to reach everyone and share experience, but it looks like it’s discounted and met with defensiveness. It’s easier.

I did not call you a bigot, I called you ignorant on a subject in which you contextualized a topic you are very well versed in. And I stand by that. You do not disproof your ignorance by your noble suggestion of casting a person with Autism with the role, you actually trivialize true acceptance. Do you know how difficult this is? It is the reason why her story IS unique and worthy in the realm of *Autism*…*for which it was created*. I think it’s ok to call on the ability of actors to do this so the story gets told. My knowledge of her is purely in this realm, so it was really interesting to read about her in your light. Never thought about her from that perspective and it’s important to do that. So please realize the bigger importance of everyone’s contribution to the collective, and realize that the comments on her acting were ignorant and discrediting. That is the reality of the symptoms and characteristics of this particular Autistic person, which are shared by many.

BTW, I love how everyone keeps calling me an ignorant bigot re: autism, even though I suggest that an actual autistic actor 1) could have benefited from the work more than non-disabled actor Claire Danes; 2) would have been a more honest choice for filmmakers who ostensibly want to demonstrate that autistic people are just as worthy, capable and valuable as their non-autistic counterparts; and 3) would have provided a more realistic portrayal of autism than someone who is not autistic.

*snort*

Do you have any knowledge on Autism? Just wondering. It makes you look really stupid to comment on her prosody and mannerisms. Funny how you mentioned looking Brittish. I get told that a lot about my son (age 4), who has a mild Asperger’s dx, and favors a very formal, direct talking style. Funnier still that we are a Spanish family!

I find your arguments valid and understand your position on the subject given the context/purpose of the blog. But ALL your extra Autism related comments were just.plain.100% ignorant. Your argument could have been clearer without all of it. But then again, it’s just a silly blog, you don’t have to know what you are talking about, it’s just your opinion. Oh I love blogs that way, sign of the times!