But it is divided into more specific diagnoses with distinguishing diagnostic criteria, and we call them "profiles". They are related, and thus are placed under the umbrella of ASD, because the DSM-5 is a diagnostic manual and not a full taxonomy of developmental disabilities.
One such profile is pathological demand avoidance (PDA). Another is Asperger Syndrome, which has been reclassified as an ASD profile. They all exhibit the diagnostic criteria for ASD in one or more ways.
Also, I want to point out that calling ASD a "mental condition" doesn't have a scientific basis; it is classified as a developmental disability. These terms matter, whether or not you consider this to be some kind of abuse.
> But it is divided into more specific diagnoses with distinguishing diagnostic criteria
The criteria are based on effects, not causes. They lack depth.
Let me put it this way -- if a trained actor can acquire a diagnosis, then it's not based on causes, only effects. This would be like gathering rocks from a field and classifying them based on their color or shape, but without a science of geology to inform the classifications.
A trained actor can't pretend to have cancer, because we know what causes it, and we have meaningful clinical tests that categorically exclude anything but a specific biological source. Psychology doesn't have this property, and it may never have it.
When Thomas Insel resigned as director of the NIMH, he frankly said that the agency hadn't "moved the needle" in terms of knowledge or treatment, in spite of 13 years of effort and a 20 billion dollar outlay (reference: http://blog.stevenreidbordmd.com/?p=1615). I greatly respect Insel's candor and willingness to report facts in a field seemingly driven by illusion.
> Also, I want to point out that calling ASD a "mental condition" doesn't have a scientific basis
Sorry, but since the entire field has no scientific basis, it's unfair to single out a specific example without acknowledging this fact -- the elephant in the room.
> ... it is classified as a developmental disability.
That also has no scientific basis, it's a response to a fad, a transitory response to fashion (as were all the classifications that went before it). In point of fact, ASD has a biological cause, but we have no idea what it is.
> These terms matter ...
No. They don't. This is proven by the fact that they keep changing, but without any change in evidence or science.
Neuroscience will change all this, but not any time soon.
One such profile is pathological demand avoidance (PDA). Another is Asperger Syndrome, which has been reclassified as an ASD profile. They all exhibit the diagnostic criteria for ASD in one or more ways.
Also, I want to point out that calling ASD a "mental condition" doesn't have a scientific basis; it is classified as a developmental disability. These terms matter, whether or not you consider this to be some kind of abuse.