That is quite a strong claim. Certainly we can see examples where ASD was/is not a disadvantage but can we generalize that to saying certain levels/locations on

That is quite a strong claim. Certainly we can see examples where ASD was/is not a disadvantage but can we generalize that to saying certain levels/locations on the spectrum are never disadvantageous? Can we say that a particular type/kind/severity is not disadvantageous on average? But what if it has a higher variance in life/social outcomes (some people are considerably worse off but others are considerably better off compared to a non-ASD population). Its quite complicated because if a condition is not debilitating then it is also less likely to be diagnosed which means they would be underrepresented in studies. The big issue is that when you make statistical bets the medical POV is to aim for average, healthy, normative. Is it better to have a gene that has a 10% chance of increasing IQ but a 20% chance of having some mental disorder? It isn't fair to show examples of people that got 'both' without considering the people that only got the mental disorder. Also, to be fair, it is a trope of any Hollywood serial TV show (House, CSI, etc.) that at least one episode depicts an ASD individual for whom it is either not a disadvantage or benefits them, etc. I wouldn't say these depictions are any closer to a real or respectful representation, However, I would say that there is just as much over-glamorizing of mental health conditions in the current year as there is stigmatizing which is detrimental to everyone.