We should stop using functioning labels do describe autistic people

Responses to Round 2First ArgumentAccording to Mayo Clinic "Childhood disintegrative disorder is part of a larger category called autism spectrum disorder." http://www.mayoclinic.org...And aspergers is a part of the autism spectrum. Refer to my source from the Autism Society, which states, "In 2013, the DSM-5 replaced Autistic Disorder, Aspergers Disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders with the umbrella diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder."The inability to communicate is considered a part of level 3, or low functioning, autism spectrum disorder.Second ArgumentThese new levels are based upon the previous concepts of "high functioning" and "low functioning", refer to my University of Washington Source and the Autism Consoritum.org source in my previous arguments. These levels were created to incorporate other disorders which could not be determined to be separate from Autism.Third ArgumentI would simply like to ask what the Pro would suggest changing the terminology too? If the Pro suggests the Terminology that should be changed, so this begs the question "what should it be changed to?"Fourth ArgumentI do not claim to speak for anyone with low functioning autism, however I am simply stating my concurrence with the experts on this subject.Being able to write a blog post does not determine whether one is high functioning (level 1), moderate functioning (level 2) or low functioning (level 3). Additionally an anonymous internet comment is not a reliable source in determining whether someone is high or low functioning.If a person falls into the criterion laid out in the University of Washington (which I will repost the link for), then they would be considered level 3 or low functioning. The ability to perform one task, or not perform one specific task, does not determine this.https://depts.washington.edu...(ASD.Guidelines)Feb2013.pdfResponses to Round 1First Argument While many people with ASD may oppose the labels, the concept is supported by the scientific community and many others with ASD, as I referenced in my fourth contention in the previous round.Second ArgumentThey are not as misleading as the Pro would have you think, as they contain specific criteria for diagnosis in each and refer to the ability to perform certain tasks and the severity of symptoms.Again, please reference the link to the University of Washington.Third ArgumentPlease refer to my response to the Pro's second argument in this round.Fourth ArgumentThis is blatantly ridiculous, as this is two anecdotal stories, both are unsourced. This also lacks any context to the story as how the two cases are related, or any background of the lives of the people in question. This argument should be disregarded.Fifth ArgumentThis argument lacks any coherence and does not say anything about people with autism being "silenced" in anyway. This argument should be disregarded. Lastly, I would like to point out that the sources cited by the Pro have thus far been from blogs, Youtube videos (mostly vlogs), and online forum comments. This is with the exclusion of one source, which I have also posted, and therefore should be disregarded. I have cited academics, the Autism society, the Autism Research Institute and Mayo Clinic. As in all debates, the burden of proof is on the Pro side, and thus far this burden has not been fulfilled.