"Disorder" and "special physiological difference" are synonyms.
A disorder is a condition that causes suffering.
My understanding is that it has to be disagreeable to the person who has it or put others at risk (in extreme instances).
So for example, someone with synesthesia might be considered disordered only if it prevents them from being happy or taking care of themselves, while many people with synesthesia seem to enjoy it.
I’m not sure where I stand wrt the position that autism is just a non-inferior neurovariant, but let’s not pretend we don’t understand the difference between asserting it’s a value-neutral variant and a disease.
Calling autism a disorder is an accurate paychiatric description, not a value judgement designed to insult a person's identity. An insult can be targeted at a person's autism, but not simply by describing it according to clinical terminology.
I sympathize with people who don't believe autism should be considered a disorder, but that doesn't mean discussion needs to be encumbered by walking on eggshells. In particular, admonishing someone for using established clinical terminology is unproductive.
For what it's worth, if you're arguing that "disorder" should not be used on the basis of precedents like "dumb" and "retarded", the page you cited is an exceptionally poor reference. The quotes appear to be mocking this phenomenon.
In a clinical context, yes. But there are probably close to zero clinicians in this thread.
One problem with the term "disorder" here is that quite often, it's applied to someone who has difficulty thriving under the many accommodations given to neurotypical people. If the autism spectrum was the norm, neurotypicals would have a similar disorder.
> Whether it will continue to be in the future is irrelevant for present conversation.
Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for society to lead clinicians on issues like this, which is what seems to have happened with words like "society" and "dumb".