I think the issue is that autism is not necessarily a disorder.

I'm mildly autistic and I like the way I am. Really. I don't consider it a disability at all; it's got pros and cons, but for every thing that I'm worse at than a "normal" person, I feel there's something else equally valuable I'm better at, so it balances out as a slight positive for me and a big positive for humanity because, as the OP alluded to, diversity enables specialisation.

The issue is of course some people genuinely experience autism as a disability, and the more severe it is, the more likely that is to be the case. But you can make a solid argument that autism is not necessarily disability: like height, gigantism is unhealthy, but being tall can be adaptive!

To be clear, me too. I wouldn’t change how I am at all even if it sometimes causes challenges.

There is a movement in neurodivergence trying to define autism as a different human experience, rather than in the framing of a disability, but this is still controversial within autism advocate circles.

This is a gross misinterpretation of what I said.

Another way to interpret the parent comment would be that a lot of people are autistic.

The parent comment is also saying if they weren’t autistic, half the it force would be gone. Sounds pretty black and white.

It’s saying that the conditions and traits that tend to select for IT people is often represented in autistic populations. Anyone that’s managed in IT can attest to this. Maybe “half” was a figurative exaggeration for effect, but you seem to be injecting an entirely different meaning and bias into the comment.