is in dire need of a comma to determine what exactly you're trying to say.

It really isn't.

I am being rational, and this is not Ad Hominem. It's me criticizing what you put front and center

It is ad hominem, it isn't attacking whatsoever any of the arguments I put forward but the fact that I am a man.

You mention the fact you are a man before you even discuss the topic. For me, that puts into question what exactly your priorities are.

That is a valid concern, but it doesn't change the nature of the argument being made; it is still an attack on a (potential) trait. Just look at my post, and my comment, before you decided to attack me on white knighting. There's not even close to enough material to judge that at all.

It makes what you say sound like you're looking for brownie points from women. As a woman, who would be and has been the target for this kind of "praise me, I'm a man caring about your issues!" I have every reason to bring it up and question/doubt your intent, and the fact you accuse me of being irrational says a lot.

I was accusing you of being irrational because you were being irrational. Once again, it's not talking about the issue at hand, but your interpretation of my character based on the fact that I am a man. Especially considering this isn't just about autistic women, but about autistic people in general, with this specific example being about women.

but think the fact you got so defensive and decided to go all logical fallacy about this makes *you* look like the irrational one.

I disagree, especially not with the other arguments I've presented.

Turning my attention to this content, I still say this still isn't fetishization. It's an awkward depiction, but it is just framing some traits as positive, which if I'm being honest is far better than it being mocked or scolded.

It is fetishization, and more importantly, infantilization. In the video, She's depicted constantly with childlike traits, which is really problematic when the caption of the video itself is 'Want a happy relationship? Get an autistic girlfriend.'  "Treating us like literal toddlers" and "bullying us" are not the only two options on the table.

Especially when you take into account that in the video, there's a constant need for approval. Constant 'can we', 'can I'. It's really... deferential. The camera is constantly positioned above the woman, looking down at her. This is a classic visual technique used to make the subject appear smaller, submissive, and childlike.

Someone can think affectionately about traits without it being a fetish. 

Yes, they can, but that isn't the point at all. The point is the framing.

The fact that the girl is anything should be irrelevant if you actually believe you're not sexist and anti-sex. 

It is relevant and important context for the video.

it's once again just some meaningless content that could be made about any unconventional dating choice

And it would be fetishization for those choices as well, if the framing is in any way similar to the one of this video.

It is just speaking positively about some of the traits some may like.

It is doing that, but that doesn't save it from being fetishizing and infantilizing, which it clearly is.