For this to be true, autists would have to communicate and/or work with other autists as competently as neurotypicals mesh with each other. Strictly speaking, we should be able to work with other autists more easily than we work with neurotypicals who have a basic familiarity with autism, since we also have that advantage. In my experience we are not. Replacing your left hand with a sword also has measurable advantages but that doesn't make it not an overall impairment. Personally I find this cultural trend where "your deviation is your identity" to be illogical and offensive.

Part of, not the whole

I am who I am, in part, because of my quirks. Saying they are not part of me would be denying who I am.

I don’t understand what’s offensive about people being happy with who they are.

Question: isn’t identity that which makes one distinct from others, like name or government identity number?

Not at all. You're judging by the standards of neurotypicals.

Suppose we discover a genotype that correlates with extremely high social competence, people who are just naturally much better at communicating and working with others. (This isn't much of a stretch; we know there are people like that; we just don't know if it's genetic.) If we document this new, higher level of social functioning, does that mean that neurotypicals are now also defective, diseased?

The entire community you are here representing with your comment is intellectually dishonest, at the least, and at the most, actively harming our understanding of autism.

I remind you, like others have in this thread, that there are non-verbal people who share the designation of autistic. There are people in jail, permanent homes, and who do not have power of attorney over themselves who share the designation of autistic. There are children who spend their days wanting to bash their head into the nearest wall, and who cry and cry due to sensory issues, that share the designation of autistic. I COULD GO ON.

By sharing the thoughts you just did you are directly denying that those things exist. The community who promotes those opinions operates as if those things do not exist. It is bad.

There are traits that can arguably be considered "suboptimal" that can be part of an ASD diagnosis. But they are neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to be autistic. That's why I said "autism is not [..] suboptimal in itself" (emphasis added).

Also, can we please stop pointing at children when talking about autism? Somehow everybody who does so stops caring about them as soon as they're old enough to speak for themselves. Autism isn't defined by autistic trauma, we just don't care enough about autistic people to acknowledge them for anything other than their trauma responses.