> Actively avoiding social interaction even when it is causing the person to stagnate in their career

This is not straightforward. Many late diagnosed autistic people have followed your advice and engaged socially to the benefit of their career only to have dramatic collapses when the stress of engagement becomes too much. There is no simple answer to this.

> or have family issues.

Here there is a real question of what it means to be part of a family. If the autistic person is not receiving empathy and support from the family, then its reasonable for them to disengage. This doesn’t make it good, it just means that socially interacting with one’s family is not automatically good. It seems like this would apply to anyone, regardless of neurodiversity.

> Not needing to apologize for or otherwise address situations where the person said something legitimately mean.

I don’t agree that “legitimately mean” is an objective concept, but I do agree that it’s unhelpful to encourage anyone not to try to understand why what they have said resulted in someone else experiencing pain, and that it’s usually good to repair relationship damage when possible.

That said, there are certainly limits to this, and reciprocity is rarely available to neurodivergent people because of the double empathy problem, so I can see why someone might err on the side of advising someone not to spend too much energy on addressing issues.

> Obsessing over something to the point that other basic life functions get ignored.

If you are literally talking about someone harming their health through neglect, then I agree that this should not be recommended, however I am not sure this is what you mean.

> nobody (outside of those wrapped up in deaf culture) would want to make themselves deaf.

Not strictly true (there are certainly tinnitus sufferers who would choose to be deaf if it ended the ringing), but I know what you mean and accept that it’s true enough.

But likewise there are many deaf people who would not choose to become hearing, because they are happy with their lives.

> Just because an arbitrary deaf person could be happier than an arbitrary hearing person doesn't mean that the deafness doesn't impair them relative to their own baseline.

There is no ‘their own baseline’. This is a flawed concept. What you are talking about is a counterfactual world in which they weren’t born deaf.

That’s not different comparing the person with what you imagine their life would be like if they weren’t deaf. I.e. no different to comparing them to an arbitrary hearing person.

> Ironically, that misconception is something some people with disabilities have had to fight!

I don’t see how this is connected.

> High IQ individuals with learning disabilities do well enough in school that they are often ignored, despite the fact they could do even better if they were taught how to manage their shortcomings.

Mostly true, but you have smuggled in the word ‘shortcomings’ which is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Who wouldn’t be better off if they weren’t taught appropriate skills?

> The comparison has to be made to yourself longitudinally, not to others.

See the earlier comment. Comparing yourself to an imaginary different version of yourself is of questionable utility, indeed one could regard this as a kind of delusion. It is certainly not objective.

> When there is no good treatment available there's some argument for the sort of positive attitude you are describing,

Why only if there is no good treatment available? A positive attitude would seem to be beneficial for anyone. This is strongly supported by research.

> but it makes no sense when it leads people to avoid help.

True, but this is a tautological straw man which also affirms the consequent. To paraphrase: A positive attitude is harmful when it causes harm. The problem is that you are assuming it does cause harm.