> Of course, I wonder why. To be honest, I don't understand why so many users were upset about the former article but not this one. It just seems dissonant to me.
Only a minority subscribes to the neurodiversity idea. Autism is considered a disability by most people, therefore this is not controversial.
Quotas for women can be, because we are taught they're equal to men.
From what I've seen in the other thread, most people complaining about "reverse discrimination" felt that one should get a job only based on their ability to do the job, regardless of gender or antyhing else.
It follows that if a person with a disability can't do the job then they shouldn't be hired over someone who can, but doesn't have the disability, in the same way that one who can't do the job but is female should not be hired over someone who can but isn't.
Only a minority subscribes to the neurodiversity idea. Autism is considered a disability by most people, therefore this is not controversial.
Quotas for women can be, because we are taught they're equal to men.