Except that there are quite a few people in the autism community who resent it being called a disability or disorder or something that needs to be helped or changed (at least the very mild forms of it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeurodiversityHelped can be very different from changed. Sometimes social acceptance means recognizing that some people need more help than others, and I think most neurodiversity advocates acknowledge that having help available when needed lets some people live more independent lives.
I struggle with this even in terms of DS's DCD. Does it really matter if he's uncoordinated as long as he can function? Is it really to his benefit to make him go to physical therapy/occupational therapy to "fix" him? At what point do you let it go and just let the person be? What if he doesn't care if he can ever do jumping jacks? We make him learn it anyway? No easy answers. He's in PT and OT so obviously right now I'm taking the route of "intervention" and trying to do what I can, but is it really reasonable? Who knows.
We have struggled a great deal with this. DS11 has worked out his own opinion, which is very like Robison's referred to in the link above-- basically that if the issue is holding you back from doing things that would be good for you or things you want to do, it's a disability. If not, it's a difference. I see it as a bit more complex than that (since I'm the one who has to decide how to spend limited resources) but I'm not opposed to the distinction in principle, and I find it useful.
We try to respect DS's unusual qualities as long as they're not harming his present or future getting along in the world, and we work very hard on changing those behaviors that will get him fired from a job or prevent his having close relationships.
YMMV.
