Disability is a dis- (opposite of, or not) and an ability. If I cannot see, then vision is a disability. I wouldn't have it, but others would. Same if I was deaf, or had various types of mechanical physical problems.
Autism is different. Many types, depending on what's going on, isn't a dis-ability. Unlike me not having something that would allow me to perceive or do actions, this "disability" is instead of how other non-autistics treat us. I'm not lacking anything. Instead, I'm told I am defective because of the way neurotypicals treat us.
I use accurate language, and NT's assume that I'm talking in coded language... That's because NT's do just that. Or that I can hyperfocus. Most NT's cant. And worse yet, NT's make fun of us hyperfocusing. And being in IT, hyperfocusing is a powerful positive trait that puts me ahead of NTs.
Unlike other mechanical disabilities, this "disability" is primarily rooted in *others* treating us badly, over perceived badness.
As for me, I consider myself superior to that of most NT's. In fact, I feel sad for those humans who can't get the joy of deeply digging into an area of study, and then learning how other topics connect to it, and becoming an adept in a very short time. It might be an arrogant view, but I've seen NT's struggle with basic concepts time and again.
But if everyone were autistic (as we define it today), and then someone was born that we would consider "neurotypical" (in this world, of course, they would be neurodivergent!), then that "non-autistic" person would probably be at a huge disadvantage (socially) in that society, so it'd be reasonable to call that person "disabled", even though we'd consider that person typical.
So yes, "disabled" is just a term we use to describe people in the minority, who have some sort of condition (physical or mental) that could confer a disadvantage upon them in our current society.
So to your statement:
> I too, thought the idea that “autistic people are disabled because neurotypical people considers autism is a disability” was not very convincing.
I've never really thought about it that way. My understanding would be more like "autistic people are disabled because their condition puts them at a disadvantage when interacting with the neurotypical world". And I think that jives with how we should think about disability: it's something that makes it harder for someone to interact (physically, socially, etc.) with the world as it is. We may try to make the world easier on disabled people -- ramps for those who cannot walk, audible signals for those who cannot see, attempts to change how we communicate with those who are neurodivergent -- but at the end of the day those people still have a disability, as there will always be parts of the world that they'll be unable to navigate the way a "non-disabled" person could.