Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In a previous video, I spoke about how, in the name of diversity and inclusion, big retailers like Kmart are stocking more and more dolls with obvious “differences,” shall we say. The ones shown on screen are AI-generated, by the way.
But these ones—the “Fashion Doll with a Disability”—are very real. Yes, the irony is not lost on me that there is a doll with a fake leg. Or “Baby Oliver with Down syndrome,” who’s had a recent price reduction.
Obviously, I’m not here to criticise people with disabilities, but the question I’d like to raise regarding these dolls is whether people with disabilities actually want them? Does a child with Down syndrome honestly want a Down syndrome doll? Or heck, are they even aware that the doll is supposed to have the condition?
Yes, I had viewers sending in stories of their loved ones who absolutely love their Down syndrome doll, but could it be possible they would have equally loved any other doll? Is it the Down syndrome they like, or is it just the fact they liked having a doll? Could it be that it’s the parent or caregiver who wants the doll more than the actual recipient?
Either way, from Kmart’s perspective, a sale is a sale. They get the money, and they get to signal how virtuous and inclusive they are. Although, I still don’t know why they don’t include a doll with diabetes if they’re so keen on representation—now with triple the insulin!
Or what about a doll with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder? The University of Sydney published a piece last year stating one child in every Australian classroom is affected by FASD. Why is a hearing aid doll okay—a significantly rarer condition—but a doll with completely preventable lifelong cognitive issues caused by a mother drinking during pregnancy is nowhere to be seen?
But today’s focus will be on this new doll—thank you to the viewer who sent this in—Autistic Barbie. She even comes with her own noise-cancelling headphones, a fidget spinner, and an AAC tablet—a speech-generating device for non-speaking people.
Look, they can sell whatever they want to, I suppose, but isn’t this very reductive? That is, taking something as complex as autism and reducing it to a few marketable props. In my line of work at university, I’ve dealt with a lot of students with autism. To say that they all use fidget spinners, or require a tablet to speak, or wear headphones, is just simply not true. In an attempt to be inclusive here, they’re actually being quite the opposite: tokenistic to the point of being patronising.
It’s certainly not just me saying this. In a recent article on the American site Psychology Today, they explain why the new doll “isn’t a positive milestone for the neurodivergent community.” They note that: “No two people with autism are the same; it’s hard to represent this community with a doll,” and that “inclusivity isn’t built on segregation and differentiation.”
Exactly. You don’t make people feel better by creating a caricature of their disability and selling it back to them for a profit.
Although, Australian universities seem to know better. The University of Melbourne published a piece titled: “Why Autistic Barbie matters.” They state: “Mattel’s latest doll has stirred conversations about the commercialisation of autism, but the benefits of this kind of representation cannot be understated”—I think they mean ‘overstated.’ They note: “When autistic children don’t see themselves reflected in toys, stories or media, the absence can feel like a message about who belongs – or who even exists at all.”
I don’t know. This doll simply is wearing some headphones and playing with a fidget spinner and a tablet. That could be any kid. The only reason we know it’s supposed to be an autistic doll is that they tell us it is. At least with the Barbie in a wheelchair, it’s pretty clear what that means. Nobody’s suspecting that it’s Barbie going for a joy ride in a stolen wheelchair. Although, based on the way I’ve seen some boys play, that certainly could be a narrative they’d come up with.
In researching for this video, I found that there is actually a Diabetes Barbie. Here I am thinking I was so clever coming up with “Diabetes Dan,” but all along Mattel has actually been selling a doll with Type 1 diabetes. Real life is truly parodying itself at this point.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
In a previous video, I spoke about how, in the name of diversity and inclusion, big retailers like Kmart are stocking more and more dolls with obvious “differences,” shall we say. The ones shown on screen are AI-generated, by the way.
But these ones—the “Fashion Doll with a Disability”—are very real. Yes, the irony is not lost on me that there is a doll with a fake leg. Or “Baby Oliver with Down syndrome,” who’s had a recent price reduction.
Obviously, I’m not here to criticise people with disabilities, but the question I’d like to raise regarding these dolls is whether people with disabilities actually want them? Does a child with Down syndrome honestly want a Down syndrome doll? Or heck, are they even aware that the doll is supposed to have the condition?
Yes, I had viewers sending in stories of their loved ones who absolutely love their Down syndrome doll, but could it be possible they would have equally loved any other doll? Is it the Down syndrome they like, or is it just the fact they liked having a doll? Could it be that it’s the parent or caregiver who wants the doll more than the actual recipient?
Either way, from Kmart’s perspective, a sale is a sale. They get the money, and they get to signal how virtuous and inclusive they are. Although, I still don’t know why they don’t include a doll with diabetes if they’re so keen on representation—now with triple the insulin!
Or what about a doll with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder? The University of Sydney published a piece last year stating one child in every Australian classroom is affected by FASD. Why is a hearing aid doll okay—a significantly rarer condition—but a doll with completely preventable lifelong cognitive issues caused by a mother drinking during pregnancy is nowhere to be seen?
But today’s focus will be on this new doll—thank you to the viewer who sent this in—Autistic Barbie. She even comes with her own noise-cancelling headphones, a fidget spinner, and an AAC tablet—a speech-generating device for non-speaking people.
Look, they can sell whatever they want to, I suppose, but isn’t this very reductive? That is, taking something as complex as autism and reducing it to a few marketable props. In my line of work at university, I’ve dealt with a lot of students with autism. To say that they all use fidget spinners, or require a tablet to speak, or wear headphones, is just simply not true. In an attempt to be inclusive here, they’re actually being quite the opposite: tokenistic to the point of being patronising.
It’s certainly not just me saying this. In a recent article on the American site Psychology Today, they explain why the new doll “isn’t a positive milestone for the neurodivergent community.” They note that: “No two people with autism are the same; it’s hard to represent this community with a doll,” and that “inclusivity isn’t built on segregation and differentiation.”
Exactly. You don’t make people feel better by creating a caricature of their disability and selling it back to them for a profit.
Although, Australian universities seem to know better. The University of Melbourne published a piece titled: “Why Autistic Barbie matters.” They state: “Mattel’s latest doll has stirred conversations about the commercialisation of autism, but the benefits of this kind of representation cannot be understated”—I think they mean ‘overstated.’ They note: “When autistic children don’t see themselves reflected in toys, stories or media, the absence can feel like a message about who belongs – or who even exists at all.”
I don’t know. This doll simply is wearing some headphones and playing with a fidget spinner and a tablet. That could be any kid. The only reason we know it’s supposed to be an autistic doll is that they tell us it is. At least with the Barbie in a wheelchair, it’s pretty clear what that means. Nobody’s suspecting that it’s Barbie going for a joy ride in a stolen wheelchair. Although, based on the way I’ve seen some boys play, that certainly could be a narrative they’d come up with.
In researching for this video, I found that there is actually a Diabetes Barbie. Here I am thinking I was so clever coming up with “Diabetes Dan,” but all along Mattel has actually been selling a doll with Type 1 diabetes. Real life is truly parodying itself at this point.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
