This is technically true. Consider the definition of "high functioning" used in research. Any individual who does not have mental retardation, i.e. anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher, is considered high functioning. Based on this definition, I believe all of the prominent proponents of neurodiversity or autistic rights are in fact high functioning.
Whatever other challenges autistics who are part of the neurodiversity movement might have now or might have had in the past, critics can always fall back to complex written opinion and proclaim "this person is obviously high functioning, intellectually."
This observation is usually made as if it were a curious and surprising discovery. "Of course they don't want a cure! Look at them, they are all high functioning!"
What is never mentioned is that all autistics who are vocal opponents of neurodiversity, and all autistics who write in length about the need for a cure, are also high functioning.
Is that also a curious discovery? Can we infer from this that only high functioning autistics would want a cure? Can we say that these high functioning individuals don't have a right to speak for all autistics?
It's true, though. All the vocal pro-cure autistics I know of are clearly high functioning. Let's go through a short list.
Jon Mitchell.- He's clearly high functioning, as he himself admits.
Sue Rubin.- She has written about her being pro-cure. While she calls herself "low functioning," she's mistaken about that. Her IQ is reportedly 133. Intellectually, she functions at a much higher level than most NTs.
Raun Kaufman.- He's so high functioning that he even claims to have turned into a non-autistic. (I realize he works for
Thomas McKean.- I know of him from his article titled A Danger in Speaking. He's clearly high functioning.
Then I've also heard of Asperger autistics who speak from time to time at rallies organized by the anti-vax autism community. Those autistics are clearly high functioning as well.
So there you have it. Prominent anti-cure autistics are high functioning. But so are prominent pro-cure autistics. Is that surprising? Not in the least. Yet, it's used as an argument against anti-cure autistics exclusively.
Anti-cure autistics, given they are high functioning, are told they should not speak for all autistics (even though there's no evidence that any of them claim to speak for all autistics.) Parents of autistic children, on the other hand, can apparently speak for all autistics (see Autism Speaks), even though the parents themselves are high functioning and non-autistic. That is, unless the parents are also autistic, in which case they again don't have a right to speak for all autistics.