Some of the typical ways in which autism can reflect in someone’s behavior are things that you also find (allegedly) non-autistic people doing. I’m playing with the idea that “autism” might, as many other things, just be something that labels a type of personality development that has reached sufficient deviance from the norm (e.g. causing problems to others, subject unable to overcome it even with external input) to be labeled an illness.
A thought experiment is to consider that every human being has so-called autism, but many have it to only a small degree where it is more manageable, more under control, still subject to the mind’s conscious influence.
It would also be an interesting line of thought to examine situation-dependence here. This factor could still draw a line of distinction, because the more someone shows typical symptoms associated with autism, but more in some situations than in others, a simple definition might become less advised.
Comparative thought: Someone is called a criminal not because they did something antisocial, but because they broke the law. Alternatively, we are all committing crimes. It just depends on the standard you apply for what is socially acceptable.
A definition of something that draws a clear line of severity runs the risk of putting the idea in people’s mind that it is impossible to change and profoundly different, when in fact it might just be a relative extreme on the scale of a much bigger problem.