Your perspective is absolutely valid too. But I also think that 'no toxicity' would actually fail to communicate the intended message. "No toxicity" is alread

Your perspective is absolutely valid too. But I also think that 'no toxicity' would actually fail to communicate the intended message. "No toxicity" is already usually the ground rules, unless you're talking about an expressly toxic venue. It's my experience that persons who exhibit obviously autistic behavior online do not recognize their conduct as toxic-- even when it is. I think they're more likely to recognize it as autistic. Except for the most extreme forms I don't think it would even be correct to call it toxic. But conduct doesn't have to escalate to "toxic" to make a game unfun. E.g. some games are much more fun to play with people who are comfortable with improvisation and are not acting in a rule-bound rigid thinking way that is unwilling or unable to adopt alternative perspectives. Perhaps if we brainstorm we could come up with an alternative term for sterotype high functioning autistic behavior that the "no autism please" person was probably thinking of which would be recognized as such by people who exhibit that behavior. I'm less confident however that whatever it is wouldn't still be offensive to you, or that even discussing it wouldn't be offensive to you because you appear to have adopted the diagnosis as part of your identity. Whomever used that phrase was almost certainly referring to a collection of widely recognizable stereotyped behaviors rather than a diagnosis, those sterotypes are no doubt uncharitable and may not apply to any specific autistic person at any specific time. But that doesn't make the phrase ineffective for communicating their desires. And maybe a clarification: "No autism please" is not "No autists please". The former, I think, refers to a collection of behaviors which anyone could exhibit, though people born a particular way may have more difficulty avoiding. I might have charitably read the latter as a poorly phrased version of the former, but I'd also be quicker to agree that at least as phrased it was more discriminatory. > Or if you are POC and they say 'no black people please'? You'd feel excluded for something you are; something you cannot change. It is flat out discrimination. Your example isn't equivalent. Being a POC isn't a different kind of mental structure that causes behavior which can make online playing unfun. It's not particularly relevant relative to its discriminatory power. Imagine I was soliciting for people to play basketball and advertised "no midgets please". It stinks for short people that they get excluded form some games due to physical properties they were born with and can't control. But when those properties are relevant to other people's enjoyment of the game, it's not discrimination-- it's just voluntary participants setting out the criteria under which they'll choose to play so that the game is fun for everyone. And sterotype autistic behaviors are generally more controllable by someone with autism than say being short or having a particular skin tone is. To be clear about my own perspectives: I would never write "no autists please" or even "no autism please"-- I would simply stop playing with strangers in any environment where that sort of conduct caused me to not have fun, at least when I didn't feel up to dealing with it. But even though it's something I wouldn't do, I can have sympathy for those who did it.