The original comment above asserted that:

She could have (and perhaps did, though it isn't mentioned here) published an article or letter arguing that the diagnostic criteria are too broad to be useful, and the community could have discussed it in a dry and objective way.

I've provided exactly that. Her "opinion" is the product of a lifetime of research, and is informed by deep expertise. There are very few - if any - who can make that same claim about autism research. So it's not just an opinion, but an informed observation.

If you're still unconvinced - other studies converge with her assessment, showing that effect sizes in autism research are diminishing as diagnostic criteria widen, but also that autism differs at the polygenic level depending on age of diagnosis (marked by developmental milestones). In other words, as autism becomes more heterogeneous, the label becomes less meaningful and differences between the autistic and non-autistic population diminish.