Generally opinions aren't 'wrong' in that they are simply that person's view however misguided. Here though, you state an opinion about what other people in two large groups do or would experience, and then you opine how they would act on what you opine they would feel. You also attribute a simple optimism to everyone with autism oh and every other disability, then shoot down what you disrespectfully generalised in the first place to assert they are just saying it but really they don't mean it.
What do you think is the point of your guesswork? And what about all the other possibilities we could opine might occur? You seem to want to override any process of consultation with people in these 2 large groups in order to reach an imaginary scenario where things are about to be magically changed.
You change the issues under discussion to a scenario that's a bit like saying, ok, but what if instead of having say, racial tension, economic inequality... etc, what if everyone could win the lottery? Then they'd be happy!
It's a fantasy scenario and it isn't what is happening or ever likely to happen. Try staying with the real stated positions of different parties in disagreements they have, try finding out more about their actual varied points of view, and ask them,what makes you think that? We can't magic conflicts away with unfounded assumptions and fantasy solutions. This would be more respectful too.
I was mostly trying to explain why I think advocating that people should embrace autism and give up on trying to find a cure is going to be difficult with few people being interested in listening. It looks like I failed.