Luckily for me, we are beyond the days where "girls don't have autism," and now it seems to be a game of catch up as far as information and understanding goes.
My argument concerning what is stated in the original post is that girls/women are not the only ones affected by the narrow description of autism and the limited understanding of the diversity of autistic presentations. What is described in the OP occurs with some women and some men and those men also go under diagnosed and misdiagnosed. General stereotypes for men have excluded many men who demonstrate a non-conventional iteration of masculinity.
I think that the problem is not strictly with a gender divide but with a far too specific set of criteria that has been used to identify and diagnose autism for decades. Places where autistic people gather in great numbers, like right here on the forums, show the variety of autistic presentations and affirm just how shallow the wider society's understanding is (including the medical and mental health fields). I think we demonstrate the value of having a peer-to-peer information-sharing community of people with autism. We are the people that actually represent just what autism "looks like," and we can see the myriad differences among us despite our many shared experiences.
Thank you.
Part of what us fascinating about the field of autism research is how fast it has grown, to the point that even stuff written a decade ago would now require some footnotes.
If I may add some additional context...
Kanner's original descriptions of autism were basically all drawn from upper class white boys.
This is a classical issue in the medical and psycological fields - where the original/reference study was drawn from a limited subset of the population. This leads to a self-perpetuating situation where other presentations of a condition are missed and underreported, skewing the stats on prevalence rates which may result in a specialist preemptively ruling it out as unlikely (and increasing the risk of misdiagnosis).
Few folks have diagnoses from the 1980s or earlier due to limited knowledge of autism, even among doctors and psycologists, and it's only in the 1990s that we see more diagnosis.
In the 2000s and into the early 2010s, we see a lot of literature (like that in the OP) highlighting how autism may present differently in women vs in men.
By the late 2010s, this has fallen out as it is noticed that there are men who better fit the description of female autism, and vice versa. The recogition is that those who are gender non conforming can exhibit signs differently.
In the US in particular, there's also research into how autism awareness and support is lacking in black (African American) and brown (Hispanic) communities.
Today, we recognize that all intersectionalities impact presentation, diagnosis access, barriers, and supports.
In the Asian and First Nations / Indigenous / Amerindian communities, awareness, research, and supports continue to be scarce.
Additionally, those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those in rural areas also face significant barriers, especially in accessing supports.