What is Reddit's opinion of Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I believe that autism/ASD is bad science. To quote the English child psychiatrist Sami Timimi, "Autism is not a scientifically valid or clinically useful diagnosis". The American psychology professor Lynn Waterhouse, along with Eric London and the renowned Swedish researcher Christopher Gillberg, authored a paper "ASD Validity", which concludes that "the ASD diagnosis lacks biological and construct validity" (which is just a more jargon-laden way of saying the same thing as Timimi's claim that autism is not "scientifically valid"), and therefore that "the ASD diagnosis should be disbanded in research" (in other words, researchers should stop using the concept, because it is a scientific dead-end). That follows on from Waterhouse's book "Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity" which concludes that "autism is not, in fact, a single disorder or a spectrum of related disorders" (p. xii) and "the theory of autism as a single disorder or spectrum was mistaken" (p. 436). I think this is also supported by the paper "Examining overlap and homogeneity in ASD, ADHD, and OCD: a data-driven, diagnosis-agnostic approach" which concludes that the distinction between ASD, ADHD, and OCD is not biologically valid.

I know a lot of people who have chosen to identify with the "autism"/"Asperger's"/"ASD" label are going to be unhappy about the claim that autism is bad science. It is an emotionally threatening point of view. But, we should judge viewpoints based on the quality of arguments for them, not on whether the conclusion is emotionally pleasing or displeasing. In debates about religion, it is commonly argued that the burden of proof is on those making a positive assertion – which, if applied here, would mean that the burden of proof would be on those who claim that ASD is good science, not on those who criticise the science behind it. And yet, you will find nothing that defends the science of ASD with anything near the scholarly rigour with which Waterhouse attacks it. Almost all ASD research just starts out by assuming that the concept of autism/ASD is good science, rather than seeking to validate or prove that assumption; the small minority which actually queries that assumption rigorously, consistently reaches a negative conclusion.

Coming back to the topic, if ASD is bad science, if "autistic people" is simply an overly broad group composed of individuals who have many different and unrelated things going on, with nothing overall in common but some vague similarities in symptoms, then asking about the religious or irreligious tendencies of that group is of questionable value. It is like going back to the 19th century and asking about the religious views of women diagnosed with hysteria – many women diagnosed with hysteria did in fact have real problems, whether psychosocial or medical, but the "hysteria" label was just grouping together a whole lot of different individuals with very different situations and issues under one overbroad and arbitrary label – just like the "ASD" and "autism" labels do today.