Look, I think there's some subtext to their statement, and I stick with that. You are fully within your rights to disagree with me on that. I see where you are

Look, I think there's some subtext to their statement, and I stick with that. You are fully within your rights to disagree with me on that. I see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from. I definitely feel that there is some type-casting here for people with autism. They want them to be the dorky lovable genius that they see on The Big Bang Theory every weeknight at 5:30 and 6:30. I read subtext in the article as, "Yes, these people may have social issues, but they can make up for it with their intellect, and that's our motivator!" And I disagree with that. These people don't need to qualify themselves at all. Their social issues are not intentional. They don't need to make up for anything. An autistic person with the same qualifications and skills should be considered for employment equally with someone not facing those difficulties. And if an autistic person isn't a genius, well then he's just an average person who becomes an HR liability for being an asshole. That's what I sense from this article. You make some good criticisms though, I shouldn't have put in the "What they actually mean" part. I'll keep it in mind as I go forward, thank you. Closing thought: We don't make homosexual programmers qualify themselves, right? Because we can accept that it's who they are, and that it wasn't their choice. So why is autism different? Because they might offend someone? I assure you, there are many people that are offended merely by the existence of homosexuality.