If you knew nothing at all about the author of this statement, would you trust that person's judgment of the teenagers' dress for the show? Would it change your inclination to trust (or distrust) their assessment if you knew the person was a woman? That she was in her 60s? That she considers Forbes and WSJ opinion pieces a good way to learn about how to behave properly in the business world? That she thinks the 1950s and 1960s were a better time for a person with autism to grow up, because the world was consistent, structured and presented a clear messsage about correct behavior?
Would it change your willingness to trust her assessment, if you knew the author of that paragraph was Temple Grandin?
The paragraph can be found on page 52 of _Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships_, and I can't promise that I will be able to read the book in its entirety -- altho I am going to try really hard. For one thing, it was _designed_ to pass the page 119 rule with flying colors. The page 119 rule, IIRC from my r.a.b. days, is where you flip to an arbitrary page (in my recollection anyway, page 119) and read it. If it grabs you, you give the book a try. This book puts the list of 10 unwritten rules on page 119. And those rules are quite reasonable.
I've tried reading Grandin before, and found it impossible. This is the first time I've gotten my head completely wrapped around why I reading her work makes me so bonkers: her political views make words like "anathema" seem reasonable for me to use in a sentence describing her.
I'll at least make a solid effort at reading the first section by Sean Barron before deciding whether I can continue or not. And I suspect I'll be coming back here to vent in some detail about how horrifying it is (at least to me) that a woman expressing views like Temple Grandin dominates our society's discussion of autism.