Not arguing here. But just want to point out that disability subculture usually arises as a survival response in the face of discrimination and segregation. Everyone has a need for community and a sense of belonging. When broad hegemonic culture rejects you and your presence, belonging is found in the one distinctive feature that is the cause for the rejection and the source of cohesion with your peers. See also gay subculture as a response to homophobia, US black culture as a response to racism, feminist sorority subculture in response to misogyny, etc. So it is not rare to see disability subculture as a response to ableism. These communities are very important for security and preservation of individuals. Just as everywhere else, security is always a trade-off with something else.

We wouldn’t need a subculture if we weren’t oppressed and excluded from normal culture.

Obviously autism can vary between people, but it's not something that's wrong with me, and I wouldn't want to cure it. I'm different than what's widely considered normal, but in a way that I think is fine. It's like having red hair or being transgender.

Quick question, are you disabled yourself?

I'd say subculture is fine. A subculture doesn't have to be bad or annoying. Identifying with autism is also totally fine. Recognizing kinship isn't bad.

Where it goes wrong is using it as an identity outright. "Sorry, I'm autistic" is just fucking more annoying after someone does something annoyingly autistic. Being autistic doesn't mean you literally cannot learn good social behavior. By the time that is true, there is definitely something more serious than autism involved.

Although ironically it matches the meta-context perfectly (displaying signs of autism in an exam to detect autistism).