First of all, unlike disorders, everyone has the same chances when it comes to what sex their kids will be – being a woman doesn't make you more likely to have a girl (obviously). Meanwhile people with disorders have a VERY HIGH likelihood of passing them down to their kids. Some LGBT is partially genetic, although things like environment and whether you're ND play a much greater role.

Secondly, being LGBT or a woman in most first world countries isn't comparable to being disabled – and LGBT rights/equality are extremely high in more civilized places like Amsterdam – but to answer your question:

No, I wouldn't want to have a girl in this society, or anything before it – I mean to be honest I wouldn't want any children, but I think women in this age are still seen by the people who have the power in this society as targets/objects. I don't want to subject my child to all the disadvantages and potential horrors caused just by being a woman.

For LGBT it's more complicated – there are places which you'll get a life-ruining amount of bias because you're gay or ace or trans, and there are places which you will be mostly accepted and you'll not face nearly the amount of discrimination as most people with Autism or ADHD would. I wouldn't intentionally have an ultra gay kid if I were for some reason permanently stuck in an extremely hateful part of the south. But if I lived in a mostly liberal or leftist city that's known for being LGBT-friendly? Then it doesn't matter.

That's the discrimination difference. If you're gay, there's plenty of places that don't care. Plus it doesn't affect your daily functioning or your workflow or whatever. But if you have a mid case of ADHD or Autism, then that will be held against you practically everywhere by a majority of people. Of course, societal interactions aren't the only difference.

And what's the good in "society might eventually change for the better" if society's like that now? Should I subject my kid to suffering in the present just because it "might eventually get better maybe" with no guarantee as to a 'when', 'how', or even an 'if'? I'd gladly sacrifice myself to advance the rights of NDs, but I won't sacrifice a possible child who can't even consent to it.

If you see your suffering kid's existence as "an act of spite" against a dysfunctional system... I can't deny that sounds pretty immoral to me. I'm not here to insult you, but the way I see it is: the present is the way it is, I'm not going to sacrifice an unconsenting child just to spite the system or as a "well they want us gone, i'm not gonna give them what they want". It's not heroic, it's not brave, it's not honourable. The kid certainly isn't going to feel honor when he's being completely fucked over by society. (to quote "All Quiet on the Western Front" – "Honor? My son died in the war, and he doesn’t feel any honor!")

It's immoral – giving birth (a completely selfish act) to a child where you KNOW they have an atypically high likelihood of having something that will most likely cause them a lot of suffering in life.

I see the argument "a lot of blind people like existence so knowingly giving someone a disability isn't bad" with the same weight as "it's cold outside a lot of days so global warming isn't a problem". Like sure? It's not like everyone who's Autistic or ADHD or has a terminal illness or has down syndrome or bipolar or depressed is going to hate their life. But you, by willingly giving someone those things, are giving them something that most often absolutely fucks people over in ways uncomprehendable to people without disabilities. It doesn't matter if it's not guaranteed to make you unhappy, you are taking a large inherent risk.

Also, as a sidenote, the rhetoric that Autism/ADHD aren't disabilities is harmful. Just because something isn't disabling to you doesn't mean it's not a disability as a whole. Disabilities are a spectrum just like everything else, you as a person can have a physical disability like MS and still function fine for example. But that doesn't stop it from being a disability, a disorder, whatever. Much like how having a viral infection but it not showing any symptoms doesn't mean it's not a virus – it's just not affecting you as much as it does others.

Being a person with a disability doesn't necessarily have to mean you're a disabled person – you can use "disabled" to mean impaired functioning (e.g. if you're wheelchair bound and it gets in the way of your daily life) rather than just to mean that you have a disability. But many times, I would say the majority of times, neurodivergence is actually disabling in a way other than via "the system".

Anecdotally, my autistic friends emphasize how much torture light and especially sounds are, have pretty fucked food sensitivities (so do I, but because of ADHD), they get terrible burnout, etc. And they're ""high functioning"" (high/low functioning are dehumanizing/reductive terms imo which is why it's in double quotes). Of course, one of my friends actually gets an advantage from their ASD, which is they can hyperfocus on stuff for a looong time, but then they get burnout for months to years and never touch it again.