In the process of dealing with my own problems and identity, I've spent a lot of time reading various theories, talking with other PD sufferers, and trying different treatments around PDs, which is why I feel confident speaking on them. I can't say the same for ADHD (have it but haven't extensively researched it) or ASD.

The way I see it, our disagreement comes down to this:

Are personality disorders immutable characteristics or patterns of behavior, and then following that should they be tolerated and accepted or treated and relearned? Or more in line with the original topic, should words that are commonly used to describe either the behaviors or the categories be avoided?

My own experience of my PD is that it was comprised of learned behaviors, maladaptive coping mechanisms, and cognitive distortions, all of which were relearned or are in the process of being relearned, to the degree that I no longer identify with the label "borderline". This experience, coupled with multiple examples of people with similar experiences, as well as a wide array of criticism of static models of psychology and institutional pathologization, makes me lean in the direction of PDs being a social construction that describe a variety of behaviors, which can be relearned.

Onto the next question, I don't see the symptoms as a different way of thinking-- a matter of diversity-- but as patterns that are generally harmful to both the disordered person and the people around them. This isn't to say that the disordered person is harmful-- that we're essentializing toxicity to someone's fundamental identity because they've been assigned a label-- but that the behaviors used to characterize the label are harmful, by definition (otherwise it wouldn't be viewed as a disorder). As such, I don't advocate tolerance of toxic behaviors, whether they've been categorized or not. What I actually hope for is that people around me draw attention to these patterns and behaviors so that I can work on them.

And finally, should words used to name these categories be avoided in common usage to describe behaviors? To be honest I have a much bigger problem with the institutional categorization than anything. Especially with how controversial and inconsistent the diagnostic criteria and definitions are. The idea that because someone exhibits disordered behaviors means that they are a disordered person (and always will be) is the source of the stigma and the source of the institutional otherizing, not the other way around. I only have a problem with common usage of the terms inasmuch as they essentialize behaviors as inherent characteristics to a supposed "type" of person, a type that is institutionally defined and may or may not actually exist.