If they’re behaving that way unannounced then yeah, it’s not good but if the manager is aware then all that’s needed is “hey team, Andy is on the spectrum and prefers to work this way. Please try to accommodate, any issues let me know”
Those requirements aren’t challenging to meet for a coworker.
Imagine someone comes to your desk and says they need help with something and you say "Please go away, you're distracting me" or you simply ignore their presence. How would they feel?
I'm not saying OP is doing it at that level but I think you can see my point.
I would press you to reflect on why you think you have the right to tell a stranger how to behave. Why your opinion of "correct" behavior is the only possible valid option.
People like you have this assumption that autistic people somehow owe you. That you expect them to go through a great deal of stress and effort to act they way you want. If they do, you give them nothing in return. If they instead prioritize their own comfort and wellbeing, you give them abuse and call them toxic.
Edit: for perspective, telling an autistic person they're toxic for doing what they need to cope is the same as calling a person in a wheelchair toxic because everyone else has to walk slower to keep up. This is abuse and does real harm to people.
Isn't that what OP is doing to coworkers?
These agreements should take everyone's individuality into account to find a balance or compromise in terms of personal preference and overall comfort (not to mention meeting the goals of the team from technical and business perspectives) which everyone involved finds acceptable.
My comfort is no more or less important than that of others.
I'm just pointing out the obvious: we are all telling others how to behave to a certain extent.
The response is "disabled people don't need accommodation, you should just act like you're not disabled no matter the personal cost"
The difference is between asking for help and setting boundaries for what you can tolerate, and telling someone else they're a bad person for being disabled.
One is reasonable, if annoying. The other is a direct attack on an individual.
40% disability is very common for diagnosed autistic people, meaning they are categorized with the same amount of impact on their wellbeing as crippled, wheelchaired, or mentally impacted people.
So I think the discussion and comparison that calamari4056 started is very well reasoned and makes sense in the context of "what society expects of you" vs "what you can expect of society".
I'm not sure why you're implying that disabled is a dirty word. That's the word that pretty much every disabled person uses to describe a disability. It's the official legal term for the same.
And yeah, it's a personal attack when you tell someone they're a bad person for having a disability that inconveniences you.
Nevertheless I'll try to put this in neutral terms. Hopefully I get my point across without sounding too punchy.
I'm at work to work. It sometimes feels like managers and companies put you in a double-bind. On one hand I am supposed to be a factory-line worker, solving ticket after ticket. Make whatever metric go up so to speak. On the other I'm supposed to be part of a "community", get involved, be proactive, show my brilliance and creativity..
I've found that I have to place heavy emphasis on the code-monkey side of things. Even if the internal communication is the other way around (e.g. by the usage of the word toxic). Because creativity happens for its own sake, shipping product is a second thought at best. We framed the market in rigid and mechanical terms. And Ii the end we have to abide to that sterility in order to succeed.
Basically;
lazy / inflexible management = productivity losses flexible & inclusive management = empowered people + awesome results
I would press you to either make some consolations on your lack of response and ignoring of messages.
Unless you’re in HFT or an environment that is not dependent on relationships but systems, like government.