Sure, some people are quick to pathologize any behaviour. Culture in general has moved more towards that over the last few decades. Some are quick to do it others, others do it to themselves. I've noticed some people around my younger teenagers ages (14 &16) seem to think any strong emotion means you need to see a therapist.
That said, much of what I'm reading, I've been hearing for over 20 years, back when my oldest was denied being put forward for assessment because, in the paediatrician's words 'everyone thinks their kid is autistic these days' and she put in writing that my DS1 (age 6 at the time) communication difficulties and DD1's (age 4) 'odd cadence to her voice' was entirely because I have a foreign accent. Everything else about them was dismissed, it was all my fault.
Funnily, when my DD1 finally had her assessment at 17, after being put forward by her secondary SENCO after repeated meltdowns at school, the sing-song cadence of her voice was included in the write-up as one of the several indicators the clinician viewed as significant enough to say she meets the criteria for ASD. DD found it funny, I had a lot of other feelings.
So yeah, some people apply labels too quickly, and I find it frustrating when it's mainly jumped on to explain negative behaviours; however, I'd rather people were open to the possibility rather other people be dismissed the way my kids were. They could have gotten help so much sooner if we hadn't hit the wall of the people who assumed we're jumping on a bandwagon.
As for neurospicy, I think my DD has it - we already have neurodivergent as an umbrella term, neurospicy is playful language that isn't always appropriate. It's one thing when people she knows who are at a similar place where she is now use it for themselves as a playful thing - we don't need to be serious about our conditions all the time (I refer to having a hypotensive episode as my limb(s) being switched off so she's used to playful disability language) - but if anyone had used that on her when she was a kid and still having high support needs she'd have felt belittled, and it would be very disrespectful to use as a general term towards everyone who is neurodivergent, particularly in her eyes if they were including some of the kids she's worked with with who have very high support needs.
I do think it's disrespectful to those who can't function without a lot of support to be lumped together with those who've essentially jumped onto a bandwagon but who are perfectly capable of coping with the real world.
There has been discussion for some time of the pros and cons of having brought conditions together under the ASD umbrella and on considerations to divide out again based on areas of difficulties and/or severity. I see the appeal of having clearer lines or better ways to discuss ASD on its own compared to ASD with some common comorbidities that significantly increase support needs, but also the benefits in recognizing that disabilities in the real world are rarely that neat and for many, support needs fluctuate over time and with environment.
Both my DS1 and DD1 have previously needed high to very high levels of support, but once out of secondary, able to be in environments of their choice that they could develop their own coping strategies (like the scripting PP mentioned), their support needs dropped. DD1 went from having autistic meltdowns regularly to not having one since she left secondary school - close sometimes, but never like it was - and she has been able to work well - if having found the interview process rather difficult to navigate. DS1 has gone from doing 5 GCSEs in a specialised programme and everything being a struggle other than maths to being flown out by his employer for projects. I imagine they appear able to perfectly cope in the real world, and that's credit to their hard work and having been mindful of finding environments that suit them so they no longer need as much external support, not that they are less autistic now than they used to be.