Which is why in the article it was mentioned that many who are "high functioning individuals with autism" hang on to the term "Asperger's" (despite some trolls re-renderings of it) - as it was and is a label that, perhaps incorrectly, has been applied to that particular subset of autism spectrum disorders.
At the same time, we don't want to say that those in that sub-group only have issues with social skills and cues; the issues that such people face are much broader than just that particular area.
Also, we don't want the term "autism" applied only to those who are in that set either.
That is perhaps what the terminology change was about - the idea that by inserting the word "spectrum" into the diagnosis, and removing the individual terms, that people would see it more as a continuum diagnosis, much like Asperger saw it. However, people will likely tend to focus on the first word "Autism" and come to a different conclusion - maybe. Which is again why, I suspect, people have hung on to the "Asperger's" label for their particular subset.
Maybe there's not a good answer or solution for the definition(s)...
When we refer to the "autism spectrum", most people think of it like two points on a scale. From 0 to 100. You are 30% autistic. Or you're 75% autistic.
That is not the case.
It's why we say "If you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism".
Autism more refers to a certain group of developmental delays and processing issues. Being "on the spectrum" means you exhibit one or more of these traits. You can be a high-functioning person with autism who has sensory processing issues. But you can be completely verbal, pick up on social cues, etc.
Or you can miss social cues, have no problem with sensory processing.
Or you can miss cues and have sensory issues.
Autism is complicated. And we're just now really digging into it and discovering what it means.
I've learned to fake it pretty well in most situations. I like to think that it never even occurs to most of my coworkers that I might be on the spectrum. That said, I am absolutely unambiguously faking it. There is a very thin veneer of learned social behavior, and I'm very careful to not put myself in situations where that veneer is likely to be pierced because when it happens I have absolutely no idea what to do.
You admit that we call extreme cases of slowed reading development a reading disorder.
People with autism do represent extreme cases.
I understand the logic behind not wanting to call it a disorder due to the negative connotation the word carries. And I appreciate the sympathy. But recognition of the condition is far more valuable. Even if a less-desired word has to be used, I'm just glad it's being recognized.
I don’t think I’m autistic but personally I know I would have benefited from a course on social cues.
I think we can treat autism like any other subject. For example, some children start reading earlier than others, and other than extreme cases we don't say that they have a reading disorder. We simply recognize that some people have more difficulty than others learning to read. Can we do the same with social skills? Simply have a dedicated class with structured learning, and recognize that not everyone learns social cues at the same rate?