I've Been Trying To Ask This For Some Time Actually, So Here I Go:

I've been trying to ask this for some time actually, so here I go:

Is The Good Doctor good autistic representation? I'm afraid I might have used it when talking to my neurotypical parents about the different ''degrees'' of autism using dr. Shawn as an example when in reality he's a bad example. You're one of the only actually autistic people I can ask this to, even if it might seem a stupid question, but like... Is he good autistic representation?

Thanks for the attention anyways <3

(since this is about neurodivergence and a bit long, I'm going to bold and highlight some phrases here and there, because it makes it a little easier to read.)

so, is The Good Doctor good autism rep: in my opinion, no. are there autistic people like him in real life? absolutely. but is he a good, true reflection of what autism actually is? not really.

my problem with The Good Doctor is that it employs a lot of stereotypes, and whether or not they're "good" doesn't really change the fact that it enforces this really narrow idea of what autism is to allistics; white, cishet, nerdy male who is a genius savant and lacks social skills. autism is incredibly diverse and multifaceted, and anyone and everyone will experience it differently. so the fact that only stories like Shawn's are shown really limits our progress on combatting misinformation.

but it's not just that the show very heavily leans on stereotypes and lacks general creativity in portraying the neurotype, it's that it was really obvious how few- if any- actually autistic people were consulted. it feels like a production made for capitalizing on us without actually putting in the work to show us for who and what we really are. it honestly seems like they read a few articles online and watched "rain man" (which also has many of these same issues) and based their story off of that. it's hard to tell from a glance, but the more you look into it, the more you can see that it's just regurgitating the same narrative under a shinier lens and the guise of modernity and "wokeness." this specific story they decided to tell is quite unoriginal and reflects a very small percentage of us. that's not to say that none of us can relate or see ourselves in Shawn, but the most us can't - at least, not very often or consistently. (also, there is shown to be a strong link between autism and queerness, so it's strange that even in a time where psycho/neurological research and information is rising, the white cishet protagonist remains at the front and center of autism media.)

furthermore, some of the stereotypes and "traits" they used are not supported or even really experienced by the autistic community. for instance, his visualization of anatomical systems and functions in a hyper-realistic manner is not an autistic trait. sure, there are people on the spectrum with eidetic memories and incredibly vivid "inner-eyes", but again, only a small percentage of us have that, and it's not inherently an autistic trait. (Spencer Reid from Criminal Minds is another good example of this exact scenario.) this could, in theory, tie in with the trait of "detail-orientedness" that many of us experience. but it is likely a characteristic of an entirely different disorder or neurodivergency, which only furthers the idea that it was not researched in depth and the autism aspect was only meant to serve as a plot device to make him "interesting." i don't know about you, but i personally don't like the idea of only being allowed to exist as an autistic person if neurotypicals find me interesting or "plot-relevant."

as with the last statement, the same thing also applies to the "genius savant" stereotype. believe it or not, not many autistic people are actually savants in the quirky, brilliant way that hollywood likes to portray. we have our own skills, just like allistics. sometimes our autism "enhances" them or acts as an asset. but it's kind of a roll of the dice. the way i see it is, you can have red hair and be left-handed, but neither is an automatic, promised precursor for the other. you can be autistic and a good doctor or genius scientist, but one does not necessarily cause or even influence the other. again, in this story, it's not inherently an issue. but this narrative is pushed so much, all the time, that it's really starting to feel like it's the only way we'll be accepted. but also, it solidifies this concept of "two types of autistic people at 'opposite' ends of the spectrum," where Shawn is the "high-functioning genius" type. it's a really narrow definition and caricature of a really diverse group, and it limits the way we are perceived by allistics and neurotypicals.

sorry for the long response, but in conclusion, no, it's not really good representation because it only shows one very small fraction of autism and is not entirely accurate.

one good thing i will say, though, is that I do appreciate the writers revealing his traumatic past. many autistic people experience trauma and develop PTSD, depression, and anxiety (and possibly obsessive compulsions) because of lack of understanding, so it was refreshing to see some actual multidimensional backstory that is realistic to autistic people. anyway, overall it could've been better rendered and I think if the writers weren't afraid of losing the cherished white cis-het male protagonist trope and dramatization of neurodivergence in a way that they actually stopped describing that disorder*, it could've been a lot more realistic and actually relatable/applicable to real life.

*"disorder" does not apply to all autistic people. it is a label that individuals can use to describe themselves.

if any other autistic people have any thoughts, feel free to share! i'd love to hear your opinions as well