Is Autism a genetic disorder in babies that survive the RH factor in the mother’s womb?
No. Is someone saying that it is?
The causes of autism are currently unknown.
There is probably a genetic component to it, but it is not a straightforwardly inherited condition. I have never heard it suggested that it is in any way linked to RH factor.
Absolutely not.
Fragile X syndrome is entirely genetic, but not related to Rh factor.
Actually, I don’t see how it could be both related to Rhesus incompatibility (which I presume is what the OP is talking about) and also genetically inherited at the same time?
A family history of autism is a risk factor. I don’t actually know for 100% certain if Rh disease is another risk factor, to be completely honest, but I’ve not heard anything to suggest it is either. It’s definitely not “the cause”
Its a condition you get assigned based on a vote …not science.
wat
Dsm classifications are based on political votes, its why homosexuality used to be included, but was removed, the science is pretty flaky in psychology.
Recent research showed brain scans at 6 months were predictive of Autism in a substantial number of cases.
http://machineslikeus.com/news/autism-brain-imaging-differences-evident-6-months
Note: on edit, “predictive” is wrong word
Didn’t happen to me. 
Probably why they have a section called autism. It really is a form of mental retardation and the last DSM I saw had it under the same classification as such but it was its “own” definition. If you did not fit the profile for a mentally retarded person, but, obviously were mentally retarded in some way, you were classified with having autism.
The “vote” aspect is still somewhat with us. The related condition - Asperger’s Syndrome, gets made a separate condition or part of autism on whim, and two years ago the proposal was made that the next DSM put it back into autism. Given people with Asperger’s can be anything from well known giants in their field through to people that can only function under supervision, unable to manage with life’s issues on their own, the point at which lines are drawn is clearly pretty arbitrary. Where the line is drawn can make a big difference to the sufferers. That these are mostly taxonomic definitions is important. Since we don’t have any clue about the underlying pathology, we don’t know that there are not multiple causative issues. These definitions are useful for management of patients, but should not be mistaken for a diagnosis of cause.
Autism is pretty clear on its definition, although electronbee’s point about exclusive definition has some point, the current (DSM IV) definition includes this: "C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. " However the new proposal does away with that. Similarly the existing definition of Asperger’s includes “F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.” which is implicitly gone as Asperger’s vanishes altogether. The new proposed definition is here.
Sadly this underlines how little we understand what happens inside our skull. That a totally debilitating condition is completely undiagnosable from the physical nature of the brain (with perhaps, at best, some indicative but not understood markers) shows how far we have to go. Back to the OP. There is scant idea what Autism even is from a physical point of view, let alone what might cause it. We had enough trouble with MMR without yet more crank science.