"Remind me when we're not going be in a system which refuses to treat X properly" is honestly, uh. Your other arguments are honestly strongly tied to neurodivergency being a spectrum and thus outside of my personal experience to speak on one way or another, but I just can't abide by this one. The system is fundamentally stacked against women and the LGBTQ+ community as well. Should people stop having girls as children, as some countries have actively attempted for cultural reasons? Should people continue searching for "the gay gene" as they have historically in order to eliminate homosexuality? Should one want to bring an "innocent kid" into existence fearing walking alone at night, or fearing being beaten to death if they visit the wrong place? Oppression is NOT an argument against the existence of a group, regardless of all else. And said oppression is the exact reason why eugenics is coming to mind for people in the first place. Because this line of logic basically posits that if it's harder to live as a minority, one should simply get rid of minorities entirely.
I'm sure plenty of people would be happier if they were born straight or white as well. But how much of that is inherent, and how much of that is a product of the system? Even if you consider neurodivergency to be actively disabling, being blind is a disability and many blind people still find joy and pride in their existence, even to the point of spurning the idea of a cure.
And heck, I'm clinically depressed. Without active medication, it can be very easy to slip into the idea that it'd hurt a lot less if I simply wasn't here. That because of my neurodivergency among other issues, I can never accomplish anything. Sometimes even with medication, I still feel that way. But somehow, posts like this actually steel my resolve to fight that. Because your argument basically pointed out that at least some of the voices telling every neurodivergent person that they're a failure aren't ours. And however seemingly futile the action is, that means there's something to rebel against. And there's nothing like existing as an act of spite to help keep one going, at least a little.
First of all, unlike disorders, everyone has the same chances when it comes to what sex their kids will be – being a woman doesn't make you more likely to have a girl (obviously). Meanwhile people with disorders have a VERY HIGH likelihood of passing them down to their kids. Some LGBT is partially genetic, although things like environment and whether you're ND play a much greater role.
Secondly, being LGBT or a woman in most first world countries isn't comparable to being disabled – and LGBT rights/equality are extremely high in more civilized places like Amsterdam – but to answer your question:
No, I wouldn't want to have a girl in this society, or anything before it – I mean to be honest I wouldn't want any children, but I think women in this age are still seen by the people who have the power in this society as targets/objects. I don't want to subject my child to all the disadvantages and potential horrors caused just by being a woman.
For LGBT it's more complicated – there are places which you'll get a life-ruining amount of bias because you're gay or ace or trans, and there are places which you will be mostly accepted and you'll not face nearly the amount of discrimination as most people with Autism or ADHD would. I wouldn't intentionally have an ultra gay kid if I were for some reason permanently stuck in an extremely hateful part of the south. But if I lived in a mostly liberal or leftist city that's known for being LGBT-friendly? Then it doesn't matter.
That's the discrimination difference. If you're gay, there's plenty of places that don't care. Plus it doesn't affect your daily functioning or your workflow or whatever. But if you have a mid case of ADHD or Autism, then that will be held against you practically everywhere by a majority of people. Of course, societal interactions aren't the only difference.
And what's the good in "society might eventually change for the better" if society's like that now? Should I subject my kid to suffering in the present just because it "might eventually get better maybe" with no guarantee as to a 'when', 'how', or even an 'if'? I'd gladly sacrifice myself to advance the rights of NDs, but I won't sacrifice a possible child who can't even consent to it.
If you see your suffering kid's existence as "an act of spite" against a dysfunctional system... I can't deny that sounds pretty immoral to me. I'm not here to insult you, but the way I see it is: the present is the way it is, I'm not going to sacrifice an unconsenting child just to spite the system or as a "well they want us gone, i'm not gonna give them what they want". It's not heroic, it's not brave, it's not honourable. The kid certainly isn't going to feel honor when he's being completely fucked over by society. (to quote "All Quiet on the Western Front" – "Honor? My son died in the war, and he doesn’t feel any honor!")
It's immoral – giving birth (a completely selfish act) to a child where you KNOW they have an atypically high likelihood of having something that will most likely cause them a lot of suffering in life.
I see the argument "a lot of blind people like existence so knowingly giving someone a disability isn't bad" with the same weight as "it's cold outside a lot of days so global warming isn't a problem". Like sure? It's not like everyone who's Autistic or ADHD or has a terminal illness or has down syndrome or bipolar or depressed is going to hate their life. But you, by willingly giving someone those things, are giving them something that most often absolutely fucks people over in ways uncomprehendable to people without disabilities. It doesn't matter if it's not guaranteed to make you unhappy, you are taking a large inherent risk.
Also, as a sidenote, the rhetoric that Autism/ADHD aren't disabilities is harmful. Just because something isn't disabling to you doesn't mean it's not a disability as a whole. Disabilities are a spectrum just like everything else, you as a person can have a physical disability like MS and still function fine for example. But that doesn't stop it from being a disability, a disorder, whatever. Much like how having a viral infection but it not showing any symptoms doesn't mean it's not a virus – it's just not affecting you as much as it does others.
Being a person with a disability doesn't necessarily have to mean you're a disabled person – you can use "disabled" to mean impaired functioning (e.g. if you're wheelchair bound and it gets in the way of your daily life) rather than just to mean that you have a disability. But many times, I would say the majority of times, neurodivergence is actually disabling in a way other than via "the system".
Anecdotally, my autistic friends emphasize how much torture light and especially sounds are, have pretty fucked food sensitivities (so do I, but because of ADHD), they get terrible burnout, etc. And they're ""high functioning"" (high/low functioning are dehumanizing/reductive terms imo which is why it's in double quotes). Of course, one of my friends actually gets an advantage from their ASD, which is they can hyperfocus on stuff for a looong time, but then they get burnout for months to years and never touch it again.
Well if it makes you feel better, I don't plan to have children. I don't feel physically nor emotionally capable of it, and even if I was, I'd vastly prefer to simply adopt. I was simply speaking for myself on that last part, because if life is that cruel to the point that children shouldn't be born like me (be it as neurodivergent, a woman, or ace, considering the above), then why should I exist either? Because I refuse to go out without clawing at the system first.
Nor do I have anything to say on your experiences, because again, as autism is a spectrum I can't speak on them in an educated fashion. Not that I'm not tempted to, and actually did somewhat against my own better wisdom in a post I deleted (among other things I quickly regretted). But ultimately I can't speak on when one thinks a life equivalent to theirs is "fair" to live, merely when an argument for such is too broad.
Let's take workplace struggles. So does sexual harassment not count as disrupting workflow? Or the fact that women are observably taken less seriously than men and verbally abused more? What about transgender people who are outed in the workplace against their will, or can't get their deadname changed on their paperwork? What about gender and racial pay disparity? What about people who have their applications rejected for having "ethnic" names? Do you think autistic people are the only ones to ever struggle with a job for reasons outside their own control? And this is in the "good" countries. In the "bad" countries, autistic people aren't the ones who have to worry about being killed for loving the wrong person or not wearing a hat.
Also, out of curiosity, have you talked to your friends about how you think they shouldn't have children? What have they said on it?
Well if it makes you feel better, I'm not planning to have kids, certainly not giving birth, and was merely speaking to my own continued existence on that last part rather than anyone else's. After all, if autistic existence is so terrible that children should never be born with it, then why should I still be alive? Because perhaps, just perhaps, there's still something I can do about it other than simply go away, regardless of if anyone wants me to or not.
If I had a child, it would be out of love, not hate. But I feel neither physically nor emotionally responsible enough for the task, nor do I feel desperate enough to carry on my own genes to not try to give that love to someone that already exists and was abandoned by those who should have cared for them instead of some new wholecloth being instead. But I don't see the point in spiting people who feel different, either.
The truth is, people suffer. And the argument about location can be offered conversely. You generally won't get killed for being autistic, at least not at this specific moment in history, but you can be in many places for being gay or for not conforming to repressive social norms as a woman. And even in places where they aren't, is your workflow not sabotaged by being sexually harassed? Is someone's workflow not disrupted by being unwillingly outed as transgender in the workplace, or by the staff refusing to change paperwork from their deadname? Do women not statistically get paid less for the same jobs as men? Do women not also get their workflow disrupted by being taken observably less seriously and getting verbally abused more while doing the same jobs as men? Do resumes not get rejected for having names that "sound foreign?"
And even if you got rid of all that, people aren't going to stop suffering. Even if every autistic child, every LGBTQ child, every child from every local minority and every little girl were prevented from existing, humanity would still find new ways to segregate and torment whatever little remained. And for that matter, that behavior is mirrored in the animal kingdom as well. Short of wiping life itself clean, it's not really possible to prevent suffering. And at that point, aren't you just causing the most suffering of all?
And yet. Humanity is special because of the capacity to recognize that the status quo is wrong, and to iterate upon it. 100 years ago, the acceptance seen towards women and the LGBTQ+ community in "the good" places was nonexistent. 200 years ago, overt and public ownership of other human beings as cattle was seen as a social norm. Braille is put up for the blind, subtitles for the deaf, ramps and automatic doors for the paralyzed. There was a time when being gay was diagnosed as a mental disorder, and if women were insubordinate they were diagnosed with the mental disorder of hysteria and lobotomized. And yet? Some people decided, stubbornly, that the solution wasn't to keep tolerating the status quo.
Not to say that autism cannot be more of a burden than most other things depending on the person. Again, it's a spectrum. It's not for me to speak on how it feels to be someone else. But the fact that it's a spectrum also means that there's no line. At what point does a person have the "right" genes to carry a child? At what point is it "fair?" Because clearly people who are "carriers" are a no-go as well in your books, and a huge chunk of the global population is autistic. And if you count every person who has at least one disability or allergy or genetic disease or general disadvantage in society, that's just about every genetic line at that point outright. Human genetics is inherently flawed. So is the only answer to engineer humanity to be perfect, then? And if so, what defines "perfection?" Work productivity in a late-stage capitalist society?
For my part, I wholeheartedly agree with your decision to not have children as well. But it's not because you're autistic. There are billions of people on this planet, and it's no one's responsibility to keep that number ticking up. Having a child should be the choice of someone who believes that the world is worth living in for that child. To lack that and still press on would be an act of cruelty to parent and child alike.
Although I do wonder. Have you talked with your friends about how you feel about autistic individuals having children to your friends? How do they feel? Do they agree that they wish they'd never been born, as you do?