Social Media Statement

Notes:

• Short on time? Jump straight to the "boundaries vs demands" section.

• Terms which are italicised and bolded can be found in a glossary at the end.

Purpose of this statement

Over the past few years, and particularly toward the end of 2025, I have observed patterns in online Autistic community spaces that have felt increasingly harmful and misaligned with the values of care many of us hold.

On a personal level, it has been difficult to witness people I care about being targeted with hostility. On a broader level, it has been saddening to see how much hurt people in our community are carrying, and frustrating to see how that pain sometimes gets turned toward one another.

As Autistic people, many of us know the distress of having our social interactions misunderstood, misperceived, or used as justification for vilification or exclusion. Seeing these dynamics play out within our own community has invited reflection for me.

I wrote the following statement to articulate my own perspective, boundaries, and commitments in professional online spaces, grounded in a deep care for community and collective healing. My hope is that by being transparent about how I engage—and why—I can contribute to safer, more sustainable ways of relating online. My intention is also to model just one way we can centre care, accountability, and healing amongst social dynamics that are currently perpetuating harm. 

My priorities in online spaces

As a psychologist who is a registered health professional in Australia, I am bound by a code of ethical and professional conduct. Psychology is a regulated profession, so I cannot impulsively speak what's on my mind, no matter how passionately I feel about something. In addition to my professional considerations, my content and interactions in professional online spaces are informed by three main priorities:

1. The safety and wellbeing of my family, loved ones, and myself

2. Contribution to community (both the Autistic community broadly, as well as being able to be an effective psychologist for my clients)

3. Collective healing

My social media presence

My professional social media accounts represent a snapshot of my life—one facet of who I am as a multi-faceted person. I have an entire life, community, and multiple roles beyond what is visible here. Making assumptions about my character based on my social media content is unreasonable.

Others’ assumptions about my character have no power over me. I will not engage in proving myself or my intentions. That is a zero-sum exercise and one that tends to reinforce harmful social-psychological dynamics, including purity testing, call-out culture, parasocial entitlement, and the dehumanisation of people with public platforms.

I am not a performing object. I do not post, share, or engage on anyone’s terms but my own. I do not subscribe to the belief that I owe others whatever they feel entitled to. Others’ expectations regarding my availability, opinions, or advocacy do not determine my choices or actions.

Constructive discourse vs perpetuating collective trauma

I value respectful discussion, critical thinking, and ongoing learning, no matter how uncomfortable. At the same time, I am mindful of the increasing need to challenge groupthink in online spaces (yes, even in our community). I have no hesitation in removing comments that incite divisiveness, hate, lateral violence (horizontal hostility), or that perpetuate cycles of trauma. 

In making decisions about censoring comments on my posts, I am often navigating a balance between my core priorities: the safety and wellbeing of my family and myself, meaningful contribution to community, and collective healing (see: my priorities in online spaces).

My refusal to engage in collective re-traumatisation

As a multiply marginalised person, I carry my own history of trauma. I have invested nearly two decades of effort, sacrifice, time, and resources to be where I am today.

I genuinely wish that every traumatised and marginalised person were healed and thriving. This is a future I try to contribute to, in my own small way, through my work as a health professional. I regularly sit with others’ suffering in my professional role, and it is an honour to do so in ways that are relationally and psychologically safe.

On social media, however, I do not subscribe to the belief that protecting my own healing or refusing to be consumed by collective suffering is selfish. I do not feel guilt for being emotionally well or for no longer experiencing active post-traumatic stress impacts. Attempts to shame or guilt people who have healed or recovered from trauma hold no power here. 

When collective hurt, fear, or crisis are continually reinforced or amplified rather than held with care—particularly through lateral violence—our shared capacity to heal and to meaningfully resist oppression is weakened. The issue is not the presence of hurt (which is not a choice), but the patterns of response and dynamics that reinforce harm rather than support repair.

The expectations of psychologists on social media

Note: This section may apply to other professionals online, but I am speaking from my experience as a psychologist.

I have observed that psychologists are often held to higher, unreasonable expectations in online spaces. We are often expected to engage as community members and informal caregivers while remaining bound by ethical and professional standards. I raise this to clarify how these dynamics can place uneven and sometimes conflicting demands on people depending on their professional role and obligations.

This is problematic because treating psychologists as if we “should be” morally superior, responsible for others’ emotional states, and personally accountable for how people respond to content is not sustainable, fair, nor ethical. These expectations can contribute to poor mental health amongst psychologists, such as occupational and/or Autistic burnout.

A flow-on consequence of this is multiply marginalised psychologists showing up less in online spaces. This can undermine public education by narrowing the range of professional voices that are able to participate. Consider what kind of information becomes most visible when those who are thoughtful, relational, or multiply marginalised are burning out or becoming hesitant to engage, while those who are indifferent to community impact or who thrive on conflict remain the most consistently present. Many of us do not have to look far back to recall what that landscape looked like.

Rather than being about disengagement or lack of care, these realities make it necessary to be explicit about what is reasonable to expect from a psychologist in online spaces. If a psychologist is not your psychologist, and you are not working together in a therapeutic context, they do not owe you access to their professional skillset. When I choose to share knowledge or expertise online, I do so on my own terms and in alignment with my values, ethical obligations, and priorities (see: my priorities in online spaces).

Psychologists do not owe the public insight into their personal opinions, beliefs, or private actions; they do not need to sacrifice their wellbeing to demonstrate care, empathy, or authenticity; and they are not required to use their platforms in ways others deem acceptable.

Each psychologist must make informed decisions about how they engage online, based on their individual circumstances, ethical code, and capacity. I take ethics seriously and engage in ongoing reflection about the potential impacts of what I share.

Boundaries vs demands

Many people believe they are setting boundaries when they are, in fact, expressing demands or rules which aim (whether intentional or not) to control others. This can show up in subtle ways, such as expecting ongoing emotional engagement from others, or insisting that another person publicly respond or demonstrate that they have taken accountability.

A boundary is about what I will do to take care of myself, not about controlling what someone else must do. For example, a boundary might sound like: “If engaging in this conversation is overwhelming for me, I will step back and seek support elsewhere,” rather than “You must continue engaging with me until I feel better.” Boundaries describe our own limits and choices; demands attempt to direct another person’s behaviour

An example from my own experiences on social media is when someone experiences emotional distress or trauma activation in response to content I share, and then demands that I respond in a way that benefits them—such as continuing to engage while they are distressed, co-regulating with them, changing my opinions, or offering a public apology. In this scenario, this person is not asserting boundaries, they are asserting demands. I do not owe them the things they are demanding, and declining does not make me uncaring, harmful, or a bad psychologist.

So, let me state this very clearly, because it is a problem in our—and many marginalised—communities:

• Our emotional responses, however valid, do not entitle us to continued engagement with another person, even if we perceive them to be responsible for how we feel.

• If a person does not respond to our attempts at engagement, or disengages after initially responding, we should not continue engaging with them. Persisting in attempts to engage with them can constitute harassment.

• It is understandable to feel hurt, upset, rejected, or that the situation is unfair. However, those feelings do not justify continued attempts to engage with that individual.

• In these situations, a constructive next step may be seeking support to help process and cope with one’s internal experience in ways that support our own wellbeing while respecting others’ limits. That support can come in many forms, such as self-regulation strategies, community members who are willing to engage, family/friends, professional services, etc.

Boundaries vs avoidance

My boundaries are not an attempt to avoid discomfort or learning. They exist to protect my wellbeing and, by extension, the wellbeing of my family and clients.

Boundaries allow me to maintain capacity for reflective and reflexive practice, ongoing learning, and ethical engagement. This is essential for me to remain regulated and effective as a psychologist.

Others may choose to respect my boundaries or not—that is outside my control. What I can control is my response, including choosing to disengage when necessary—that is not the same as avoidance.

There is a meaningful difference between “I don’t want to hear dissenting perspectives” and “I do not currently have the capacity to engage with this perspective,” or “The way this interaction is unfolding is causing harm to me, my loved ones, or to community members observing it” (see: my priorities in online spaces).

I am secure in the knowledge that I engage in ongoing, reflective learning informed by diverse and intersectional perspectives, across lived experience, community knowledge, research, media, and literature. I do not feel the need to prove this.

Glossary of Terms

Call-out culture

Call-out culture describes a pattern of publicly naming, shaming, or punishing individuals for perceived harm, often with an emphasis on exposure rather than repair. While accountability is important, call-out culture can prioritise performance, escalation, and punishment over dialogue, learning, or relational resolution.

Collective healing

Collective healing describes how communities heal together after shared harm or trauma. It focuses on care, connection, repair, and safety being supported at both an individual and community level. It often involves fostering connection and relational safety, addressing systemic wounds, and integrating past experiences into a healthier shared future through open dialogue and working toward common goals.

Dehumanisation

Dehumanisation involves reducing people to objects, roles, or projections, rather than recognising them as complex humans with inner lives, limits, and contexts. In online spaces, this can look like treating individuals as moral icons, tools for a cause, or targets for scrutiny, rather than as people.

Groupthink

Groupthink refers to a dynamic in which pressure to conform within a group discourages dissent, critical thinking, or the exploration of alternative perspectives. It can arise when belonging, safety, or moral positioning becomes prioritised over curiosity, complexity, and open, reflective dialogue.

Lateral violence (or horizontal hostility)

Lateral violence describes harm that occurs within communities under pressure, where frustration and pain are turned inward rather than addressed at a systemic level. For example, it can look like people in marginalised communities turning their pain on one another through shaming, policing, hostility, exclusion, or demands for emotional labour, rather than responding with compassion and care, building community, or focusing on the systems causing the harm.

Multiply marginalised / multiple marginalisation 

People who are multiply marginalised experience overlapping forms of marginalisation based on multiple aspects of identity, such as disability, race, gender, sexuality, class, or migration status. These intersecting experiences can compound vulnerability, exclusion, and barriers to safety or support.

Parasocial entitlement

Parasocial entitlement occurs when some social media users develop a one-sided sense of closeness to a person with a public platform and come to believe they are owed that person’s time, explanations, emotional labour, or moral alignment. This can result in expectations that the public figure should respond, justify themselves, or meet the user’s personal needs, despite no mutual or reciprocal relationship existing.

Psychological safety

Psychological safety describes an environment in which people feel able to express thoughts, questions, emotions, or uncertainty without fear of punishment, shaming, or retaliation. It supports learning, reflection, and repair by allowing people to engage without needing to remain guarded or performative.

Purity testing

Purity testing refers to the practice of judging individuals based on rigid or idealised standards of moral, political, or social “correctness,” often requiring continual proof of alignment. It tends to frame people as either acceptable or unacceptable, leaving little room for nuance, growth, context, or human complexity.

Reflective and reflexive practice

Reflective and reflexive practice refers to the ongoing process of examining one’s thoughts, actions, assumptions, and impacts, both internally and in relation to others and broader systems. It involves noticing how personal experience, identity, power, and context shape decision-making, and making deliberate adjustments to support ethical, responsive, and accountable practice over time.

Relational safety

Relational safety refers to a sense of trust and security within relationships, where people feel respected, heard, and free from coercion, humiliation, or threat. It involves interactions that prioritise mutual respect, consent, and care, even in the presence of disagreement or difference.