@Perzival I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying in that the 'autism is my superpower' and similar brigade make me want to scream, and I'm very happy to have a discussion around whether these types of voices (which are ultimately actually a minority of autistic people) are one of the factors in why the OP's colleagues have reacted negatively to her accommodation at work. I think that you may have some confirmation bias here - outside the actual autistic and ND communities, not many people have a clue about any of this type of debate. My experience is that everyone I've told at work that I'm autistic hasn't really known what that means and has just shrugged and gone 'ok then'. Outside of people actively involved, I people coming up with the the 'anyone can get an autism diagnosis' type lines much more that I see any 'autism is a superpower' type lines. That might be my own confirmation bias.
However, I see the idea that an autism diagnosis as somehow an easy thing to get as far more damaging as a general message. The number of people paying for multiple private assessments for autism because they are desperate for a diagnosis for spurious reasons must be tiny - it's only a very small group of people who can afford that in the first place, and there's very limited benefit even if you get diagnosed. I actually have a friend whose child has had multiple NHS (or at least government funded - don't know who actually assessed) for autism and keeps pushing for more. There isn't a specific benefit for them for it being autism (they have DLA etc already in place and the child already has specialist and funded schooling), and so I'm not sure why they keeps pushing, but possibly it's because if it's autism it's not their 'fault' (long story but another diagnosis has been attachment disorder, which obviously raise some questions around whether the caregiver was at fault). It's nothing to do with pushing for a diagnosis to get adaptations. Meeting the child you can absolutely understand why a parent would think that maybe medical practitioners were wrong and the child is autistic - there are clear autistic traits, and the NHS is ultimately approving repeating these assessments.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I am saying it's not the norm. I'm a member of some in person ND support groups where a diagnosis isn't required and there's a less medicalised approach advocated. I haven't actually met anyone who says they think they're autistic who hasn't shown clear autistic traits. Would they all qualify for a diagnosis? Who knows, but it doesn't really matter to me. I completely agree this isn't the sort of group that would be appropriate for someone with profound autism, but that doesn't mean that the group shouldn't exist. It also doesn't mean that us Aspies are somehow unfairly taking up your space. The distinction between Autism and Aspergers was always fairly blurred anyway. If you discount the fact that Aspergers is clearly a better fit, I think I would have qualified for an Autism diagnosis reading the DSM-4 criteria for that.
The reality is that people with profund autism do have a very different struggles. Life is probably harder (hard to be sure because these people rarely have their
own voice) and life is definitely harder for their family members. But arguably the key differentiator isn't the autism experience but the intellectual disability - it's certainly almost impossible to separate out the two. What the Lancet report was getting at is that absolutely not everyone has the same experiences, and it's important to treat autism by looking in a structured way at lots of different areas. Relevant to that is profound autism v other forms of autism, but also income level, cultural background and gender.
All of that, which I am very happy to discuss with you, is an entirely different thing from saying that if you have kids, a job and a mortgage there's no way you could be in a position that you have a genuine disability-related reason that you would struggle in a crowded environment like a theme park.