I’ve been out sick for a few days, so I’m a bit late on the discourse wagon, but I wanted to address the legal cases and public scandal involving actor Ezra Miller and environmental activist Tokata Iron Eyes. Much of this is a retread of what I already wrote about Jean Francis Gariepy’s unnamed autistic girlfriend, with similar issues in play.
But it’s a new case, a new neurodivergent young adult “progressives” are calling for human rights to be stripped from, so we have to do this again.
The facts: Tokata Iron Eyes is an 18 year old nonbinary adult from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. They have, at some point since their early teens, become friends with actor Ezra Miller. Against the wishes of their parents, they have cut ties with their parents and stayed with Miller. They have made statements on instagram, including text and unambiguous video statements, stating that their parents are abusive, that they are staying with Miller by choice, and that they adamantly do not want to be placed under conservatorship.
Their parents have sought, and received, court orders from the Standing Rock Sioux courts ordering them to have no contact with Miller, and their parents have sought court orders for conservatorship and forced psychiatric treatment. Their parents have also alleged that Miller has “kidnapped” them, despite their explicit statements to the contrary. Their parents also routinely misgender them in public statements.
In response, “progressive” discourse in media and on social media has largely accepted the parents’ claims without question, accusing Miller of “grooming” and “kidnapping a teen,” “pedophilia”, and uncritically accepting the premise that Iron Eyes should not be believed or allowed to choose for themself to stay with Miller.
Disability, youth, and queer rights advocates have a duty to adamantly reject this narrative and stand up for the autonomy and freedom of Tokata Iron Eyes, and for all queer, neurodivergent young adults.
Now to be clear, I don’t care about Ezra Miller. They’re a red herring in all this. They are documented to have assaulted, stalked, and harassed people. It’s perfectly possible for someone to do bad things (like assaulting people) and also do good things (like helping a young adult escape their abusive family). It’s also perfectly possible for someone to do a good thing (like helping a young adult escape their abusive family) for a selfish or nefarious reason (like to exploit them in some way). I don’t know Miller’s motives, and I don’t care. I do know that it’s very common for young people fleeing abusive families of origin to end up in abusive relationships with “friends” or romantic partners because those are the only people who are willing to help them escape from their families – and the solution to this is NEVER to allow families more control. It is always to allow young people more options and resources for escaping their families.
But more to the point: Arguments about Ezra Miller’s motivations or character are just proxies for the question “Is it a good idea, is it a wise choice, for Iron Eyes to choose to stay with Miller?” and we should strike that question as entirely irrelevant.
The question should never be whether a neurodivergent young adult is making a good, wise, or correct choice. It should only be whether they have the right to make the choice for themselves, and on that question, our answer should always be a resounding yes.
Ezra Miller doesn’t matter. What matters is supporting disabled youth autonomy, under all circumstances, period.
And now, some counterarguments I’ve encountered from s0-called progressives and so-called disability advocates:
“Why do you just assume that their parents are abusive? Why do you assume the worst of parents?”
They sought adult guardianship and forced psychiatric treatment of their child. Those are inherently abusive.
As if we needed more confirmation, Tokata Iron Eyes explicitly said that their parents are abusive.
“So you’re saying that parents should STOP CARING about their CHILDREN just because they turn 18? What should parents do if their young adult children are making dangerous decisions? Just LET THEM DIE?”
Of course not. But “caring about” is not the same as “controlling.” You can care about people, offer help and advice, without attempting to control.
The best way families can help young adults is by offering a judgment-free, no-strings-attached place to stay. So many young people in dangerous situations would love to stay with their families of origin if they knew that they could do so without surrendering their basic human rights to freedom of movement, association, and medical decision-making.
“But what about GROOMING? An 18 year old can’t make a free choice if they’ve been GROOMED!”
Well, yes they can, but more importantly, let’s step back and look at the horrible ways the concept of “grooming” is being misused.
Initially, the concept of “Grooming” applied to the way that prospective child sexual abusers would pretend to be a child’s friend, gaining the child’s trust, in order to convince the child to acquiesce to sexual abuse. This is a real phenomenon that people should be aware of.
But as with so many real, dangerous phenomena related to child sexual abuse, it’s been coopted by neurobigoted, paternalistic, and queerphobic agendas.
First, by broadening the category of “child” to include young adults (with the “brain maturity” myth, among other things I’ve written about on this site), and then by broadening the category of “abuse” to include any interaction which parents or paternalistic figures deem “inappropriate.” Therefore, queer people existing around children is “grooming” because it might influence them to believe that being queer is a valid option. Relationships (romantic or platonic, including friendships) between older adults and younger adults are “grooming” because young adults are brain-immature children. Existing around developmentally disabled adults is “grooming” because developmentally disabled adults are “mentally children” and need to be protected.
In the context of child sexual abuse, grooming children is wrong because it’s a prelude to child sexual abuse. In all other contexts, be very suspicious of the agenda of calling things “grooming.”
Either way, 18+ year olds are adults who deserve the right to make their own choices, period.
“But the Iron Eyes family are from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. It’s racist and culturally imperialist to judge how they do things.”
I don’t support a culturally relativistic approach to human rights. The right of young adults to leave their parents’ home, live their lives in ways against their parents’ will, and make choices (including medical choices) their parents disapprove of are all fundamental human rights. Furthermore, no culture has a monopoly on parents thinking they know best for their adult children. This phenomenon is quite universal.
“But what if Ezra Miller is abusing Tokata Iron Eyes? What then?”
They very well might be, unfortunately. Abuse of disabled young adults is common. But stripping people of their rights is always a form of abuse, never a way to “protect” people from abuse, no matter how families and guardians spin it. The best way to protect people from abusive relationships is to ensure that they have the rights and resources to leave any time they need to.
Fundamentally, what I want to convince my fellow queer progressives who buy into these myths about “grooming” and “brain maturity” and competence is that there is no way that this oppression will be enacted in a non-queerphobic way. I know that you envision a legal system in which young adults are seen as competent to choose their own sexual orientation and gender identity, but not competent to refuse psychiatric medication or befriend older people. That won’t happen. Our liberation is bound up together. If you want young queer people’s rights respected, if you want older queer people to have the right to exist without being accused of “grooming,” you have to attack from the root the premise that children belong to their parents. You have to support a whole-liberation approach to youth and disability rights. You have to support universal competence, or you’ll be next.
