I was trying to come to the defense of those who dislike being called "an autistic person". People should absolutely be referred to as they please (just as you are saying).
The last study I provided support of my use of "majority" (not in the abstract, unfortunately), though I am open. Your links are compelling and entirely worthy. This is a debate that is highly nuanced and I agree that my comment doesn't tell the whole story. My experience comes mostly from a clinical setting, so that's what I commented on.
I was mostly upset with OP's use of "pretentious" and "SJW-inspired" to describe a preference to which a significant number of people on the spectrum subscribe. I tried to be particularly understanding with my "to be clear" addendum, but probably overstated my confidence with "majority". With that said, I think that you're making the same mistake with claiming the "majority".
Also, one can distinguish between "he is a person with autism" (not so great phrasing, implies autism is a severable condition) and "he has mild-moderate autism" (better, more specific/accurate meaning). The latter does not seem to be such a big deal, and I do use it myself.
I like the part where you have the gall to lecture people about what they themselves want to be called, using appeals to authority figures who are not themselves Autistic.
"Similarly, you should not have a problem with the majority of people with autism preferring "person with autism"
Except that the majority of Autistic people prefer being called Autistic people, rather than having an integral part of their personality and neurology erased or medicalized. The vast majority of people using the "with autism" phraseology see it as a separate, undesirable thing -- often parents looking to "cure" their children.
http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-l... http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/p/dont-call-me-person-with-au...
I don't refer to myself as "someone with femaleness" and if I did, it would be implying that being female is an element of myself that could be, perhaps should be, removable from the core me. We don't refer to "people with homosexuality" unless you're a super-conservative church claiming that there's no such thing as a gay person, just a person with a thing to "cure" or overcome. Language matters.