Yes, which would have stood well on its own, but was negated by “I’m coming to you now as an ambassador of that culture.”
I'm trying to understand how one sentence negates an entire article that says the opposite of that sentence. I can understand that sentence rubbing you the wrong way, but you do understand that regardless, the author isn't arguing for homogeneity?
We're discussing phrasing right now, and it's fine for a piece of phrasing to hit someone the wrong way or for it to get under their skin, that happens to me all the time. There's nothing wrong with getting hung up on an offhand comment or sentence that hits the wrong way. But it's important to understand that we are only talking about phrasing right now. The entire text of the article as a whole makes it abundantly clear that when the author uses the word "ambassador" they are not thinking of themselves as an anointed leader of a monolithic culture, they are using that word in a much looser sense to say, "I'm a member of this community asking for more representation from the community."
We're not really talking about the author's character or overall argument right now, because it's just not true that their argument is that they speak for all autistic people.
It’s not surprising that the way it does so is under scrutiny.
The word ambassador isn’t the only word in that phrase. The word ‘culture’ is also there. There is certainly an implication of two cultures in play.
The later part talks about a diversity of autistic voices of which the author is only one, but that doesn’t eliminate the ‘two cultures’ idea that has already been introduced.
The two cultures idea is definitely not universally held by autistic people. I suspect that this is at the root of a lot of the reactions.