the Meta-Ethics of Autism and Neurodiversity

I just did a fascinating recap on the history of  two terms, 'neurodiversity' and 'autism'. 

Currently these are political minefields, mainly because of an informal space where any disenfranchised individual may identify with such labels and to  then use them as foundations upon which to argue for compensation from, and punitive action upon, others. 

Clearly there is a broad governance gap that needs to be addressed, in terms of both verbal analysis, and socio-economic policy. This is moreover a topic for study under the grand subject of morality, and its discontents. We are simply in the realm of discussions of, 'what is good?', 'what do we do about situations deemed not/good?'

The initial mess I am concerned with, is any group of people that

1. self-identifies with a specific group-speak, 

2. expresses that inclusion to the group is necessary upon adopting the usage of local group-speak, but that exclusion from the group is sufficient upon group consensus, ( because these criteria may be contradictory ),

3. expresses that the group defines the usage of the term for people who do not self-identify with the group.

Examples of such group-speaks would seem to include :

... English, in some groups of English speakers ;

... common sense, in some groups of commoners ;

... normality, in some groups of normal identified people ;

... humanity, in some groups of humans ;

... Bitcoin protocol, in the Bitcoin validator network ;

... mean, in some groups of mean girls ;

... class, in some groups of class identified people ;

... disability, in some groups of disability identified people;

Broadly, even when 1. and 2. can be jiggled to make 2. internally coherent, 3. then remains a problem when the group engages in political, normative activity, outside the group.

Ah, empire.

<Hr>

Further banter :

The utilitarian synopsis, which will offend hard empaths, is that ... while cultural identity may be enjoyed by people individually, no individual has the right to force another individual to expend resources in the forcer's interest.

So a group may assert identity with a word, but cannot expect to be accepted by other groups, if the group's identity is non-negotiable, and if other groups have pre-existing interests associated with that word which are incompatible with the group's traits.

Ergo it is a issue of identity politics.