I do wonder if there has been some disservice in categorizing all autism types together in a way that we don't do with, say, blindness (there is a separate category for colour blind and totally vision impaired, with grades in between).

Someone who is colour blind will invariably need some sort of accommodations, but not to the same extent and not of the same type as someone with total vision impairment.

Now imagine that you were colour-blind but could see ultraviolet and infrared, and you said that you were blind (because that's the umbrella category) and they offered you an audio track when what you really needed was a different kind of camera.

If you feel the benefits of neurodivergence and are only mildly-to-moderately impaired by the symptoms, then it's not the right label at all: it means that you don't get the support you need and the wrong types of interventions are offered and there's no common understanding of the benefits because people are too focused on the deficits.

Distinguishing between the low-support need and high-support-need groups allow these different and very necessary conversations to take place without either voice feeling marginalized.

There's a third discussion, too, about whether the DSM seems to abolve society of its duty to stop disabling people who would not be disabled if the rules were changed.