[somenameforme]

This is like asking where to draw the line when somebody is bald. Are you bald if you have 1 hair? Yes. 2? 3? 137? There's of course reasonable room for discretion in saying what is or isn't bald. But it isn't reasonable to say somebody with a full-on afro is on the spectrum of being bald.

Literally some of the most high functioning and successful individuals are being diagnosed as "on the spectrum" of what is, in its "real" form, a completely crippling and disabling condition that yields individuals who would have simply been classified as mentally retarded in the past. This is just completely nonsensical.

[cubefox]

What you call "real" form is just a strong form, and there is no clear line to draw between real and not real autism, or between "completely crippling" and "not completely crippling", etc.

[pseudalopex]

Many people are on the balding spectrum.

[shermantanktop]

You could say that we all lose our hair eventually. Some of us are just temporarily hirsute.

[abigail95]

Autism is defined by social communication and restrictive behavior - not functioning, why are you so caught up on the functioning side of it?

[somenameforme]

Because pathologizing and aiming to "treat" behavioral characteristics that are not only not harmful, but actively beneficial in many cases, is completely and utterly absurd. It'd be akin to something like, 'Oh you seem to be oddly content with your life. Have you gotten yourself screened for stoicitis? I hear there's some treatments available.' It's just nonsensical.

The reason behavioral characteristics are pathologized is because they near invariably result in "meaningful" harm to an individual or to others. And "meaningful" isn't a guy saying mean things because he doesn't care about your emotions, but rather a schizophrenic deciding to go start killing people because the voices in his head told him to.