Neurodivergence

I think you got the eugenics relationship reversed: reducing a person to one of its characteristics, is the eugenic way, which aims to eliminate all the unwanted "characteristics == people" in search of some "ideal human".

When you say "I am an autist", you're dismissing all other characteristics about yourself, including that of being a person with human rights attached to it... along with a skin of some color, hopefully two legs, a couple eyes, some ability to read, use some tools, some knowledge, etc.

In non-eugenic spaces, personhood is the recognition of a minimum common ground, not some ideal to be compared against. If any of the "anarchist spaces" you mention, does it the other way... an "eugenic anarchist space" would be news for me, but strictly speaking they are orthogonal classifications.

I feel pretty much the exact opposite on your choice of words.

Although at the end of the day I don't really give a shit what people call me. I am me.

As far as "labels" go, I personally avoid them. I am me, you are you. Each one of us is a complex, layered, and often changing unique individual. I definitely have characteristics which can be useful in helping someone (someone else, or myself) to have a better understanding of who I am when explored at some depth.

However, I am not just a gathering of characteristics. "Me"-ness is greater than the sum of my parts. Does autism play a substantial role in what it means to "be me"? Sure. It's still just one thing out of so, so many that make up "me," and it's all too easy for someone (someone else, or myself) to put too much weight on that one aspect of me, and not enough on me.

Huh, I thought this was a non-issue nowadays and people knew to use "autistic person" or "they are autistic" etc, guess I was incorrect.

For the record, I'm also autistic, have autism and unlike others here think it hasn't limited my thinking or stopped me from changing and working within the bounds I have like everybody, regardless of neurotype, has.

I actually think the opposite of most commenters here, by not allowing us to be ourselves and recognise how we work, that's the thing that sets us back, overwhelms us etc more.

If we are wanting to improve ourselves we must first recognise what and who we are and then work within that so we can do that, but it should never be done for other people or because society demands it, that way leads to bad ends.

This language long predates whatever "spaces" you're taking about, it even predates the "spaces" idea.

The medical communuty, especially psychology, was making this switch multiple decades ago, because it's more useful.

Within CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), it's a foundational element to say "I have condition X", rather than "Condition X has me", otherwise there's no hope of learning new ways, new perspectives, on a given condition.

I refuse to say "I am X". You may choose that, but I'm not going to be constrained to such limiting, ossified, internal dialog.