Researchers assign no intrinsic value judgment to it. Doctors? The better ones don't in the case of ASDs, but plenty do.
I am not so sure that all researchers avoid the trap of devaluing Asperger individuals. Just the label "syndrome" primes people to perceive all that is 'wrong' and anomalous about the category, and in many the unconscious urge to congratulate themselves on their relative normality is overwhelming ('I'm alright, Jack').
The ubiquity of scapegoats throughout history suggests that the human psyche has a need to project its unaccepted/ undesirable contents onto others, so that they can maintain a more acceptable, idealised version of themselves.
Which group is used as a 'hook' for their projections is probably determined by what is nearest to hand, who is in the minority, or what one's own particular hang-ups are – although I believe there can also be collective hang-ups. Take, for example, the neurotypical faulting of Aspergers for their perceived rigidity in social interactions – the Asperger 'failure' to adjust themselves to the situation and accommodate others.
It could be questioned whether the capacity for making constant adjustments to other people is a wholly positive quality. It might be correlated with an ability to switch others on and off, going from hot to cold, often within the same interaction. Witness the capacity of NTs to switch their attention off a person in mid-word, when they see someone socially desirable/worthy in the distance.
In contrast, Aspergers may be more consistent. They may not be able to deviate from feeling warm and trusting towards someone to suddenly addressing them with a sharp tongue, inserting a snide put-down, withholding information, or throwing a surly strop. They may be bewildered by such volatile temperature changes in NTs.
In sum, being mentally inflexible and bad at transitions may not always be a bad thing. It could signify instead a reassuringly steady temperament and a stable, reliable attitude.
