When I saw the news about Barbie launching an autistic doll, I immediately thought of a parent I know. Her autistic daughter loves Barbies. I sent her the article straight away feeling so positive about how that could make her feel.
But since that moment, I’ve had a whirlwind of thoughts, because I realised this was great for her, and probably for lots of others, but maybe not for everyone. And that doesn’t make it wrong. It just makes it… complicated.
There has been so much said online about this launch, and I wanted to sit with my thoughts, and the thoughts of others, before sharing more.
But today, I’d like to share my reflections.
Quick heads up...
Neurodiversity Celebration Week is fast approaching (w/c 16th March). I’ve got just two speaking slots left - Monday 16th and Friday 20th March.
If you were thinking of bringing me in, now’s a good time to get in touch. I’d hate to miss the chance to work together, or leave you stuck last minute.
That said, neuroinclusion isn’t just a one-week thing. Let’s keep the momentum going, whenever it works best for you.
Today I’m talking about:
Info: my thoughts on Barbie’s autistic doll, and what it represents
Tips: what we can learn about inclusion, representation, and intent
Masterclass: my upcoming February masterclass
Where we started: a doll with potential
Barbie’s new release, developed in collaboration with the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), features a character who uses a communication device, wears noise-cancelling headphones, carries a fidget spinner, and has articulated elbows and wrists that can mimic stimming. It’s been described as the “first autistic Barbie.”
And for some autistic kids, especially girls who’ve never seen themselves reflected in toys, this could be huge.
But…
The tension behind the toy
As with anything in the neurodiversity space, nothing is universal. (You could argue that’s the beauty of it…)
There have been a huge mix of reactions to the doll online, and to be honest I understand almost all of the perspectives. But my issue is that too often, each of those sides is positioning their view as the right one, as opposed to ‘just one’. And then the debate becomes less of a debate, and more of a fight.
So let’s explore some of those perspectives and my thoughts, in a balanced way.
Representation and education are not the same. A doll can show difference, but it can’t explain it. It won’t undo stigma in school corridors or correct years of misinformation in society. From what I have read, the purpose of this barbie was representation. And whether it has achieved that, is a separate question. But it simply can’t be expected to solve all of the complexity related to our world view of autism.
Autism doesn’t have a look. And yet, some autistic people do feel visibly different. If we reflect that in a doll, who does it help, and who does it exclude? In reality, I think it helps some, but not all. And I think that’s OK. Again, we can’t solve all the problems with one Barbie, but we can solve some.
It’s being called the “first autistic Barbie” - which is great, in theory… but it could also be misleading. Because autism doesn’t have a ‘look’ - what if some children already saw parts of themselves in existing Barbies? Could Mattel have created a range of accessories rather than the doll itself that could be used on many dolls?
People say it’s a stereotype but maybe a better one. If the “autistic character” is no longer a white boy, and is instead a girl with a little purple dress… is that progress? Maybe. Even if it’s imperfect.
Don’t hate the player...
Let’s name it, this is also about capitalism.
Barbie is a business. And in a business model driven by product, it’s not surprising they chose a doll as their method of representation. It’s what they do. It’s what they sell.
That doesn’t mean the intentions weren’t genuine. But it does mean this: representation through merchandise will always be shaped by commercial logic.
And honestly? Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
But when profit is the lever, we miss other options. And that’s what I want to discuss next.
The deeper question: was a doll the best use of Barbie’s power?
This is where I think the conversation gets more interesting.
Mattel didn’t ask (or at least I don’t think they did, happy to be corrected by anyone in the know!):
"Given our global influence, how could we reduce harm and increase belonging for autistic people, without turning autism into a product?"
If they had, a doll might still have emerged. But I don’t think it would have been the starting point. It would’ve been one piece of a bigger, more thoughtful strategy.
Questions Barbie could, or should, have asked
1. Defining the problem first
What specific challenges do autistic children face in play, school, and relationships that Barbie could realistically influence?
How could Barbie reduce harm and increase belonging for autistic children, without turning autism into a product?
2. What if the answer wasn’t a product?
What could be funded that supports the autistic community that isn’t a new doll?
Would a campaign platforming autistic creators, stories or tools have had more impact than a single doll?
3. Who held the power?
Were autistic people deciding on this project, or being consulted too late (when the idea for a new doll was already confirmed)?
What if they said, “don’t do this”?
Practical tips for those reflecting on this too
Before celebrating “representation,” ask: who is represented, how, and by whom?
Talk to the autistic people in your life about what would have helped them/what would help them feel seen as kids
Don’t assume visual difference equals inclusion. Ask: what would meaningful inclusion look like?
Be OK with the idea that something can be good, and still miss the mark for others.
My next masterclass: How to be a neurodiversity champion, without burning out
11th February 2026 at 12:00pm GMT
A practical masterclass for building influence, setting boundaries, and driving real change - sustainably.
Register for your free space here
One final thought
I’m still glad this Barbie exists. But it’s shown, once again, how complex this space is.
However, one thing I’m clear about within the complexity, is that we have to allow differing opinions. We have to listen to each other and learn from each other if we are going to progress the neurodiversity movement in the right way.
Thanks for reading,
Jess
PS Whenever you’re ready, here are some ways I can help:
Want me to speak or run a workshop in your organisation? Head here to book a chat and make a plan.
Book a FREE Discovery call to chat through how I can support your workplace, your school or your family.
PPS Here's what someone said about some in person sessions recently… "Thank you - wow what an eye opener and food for thought” |