Yes and no.

Using blindness as a simplified example, “blind” describes a person with visual accuity of less than 20/500 and/or a visual field less than 10°. The term “blind” describes a binary classification for individuals according to where they fall within those 2 different spectrums.

By definition there is no such thing as more blind or less blind, a person is either blind or not. This is true for the lesser “visually impaired” classification as well, however the flaws of this sort of classification are more apparent there as the treatments for low visual accuity and low visual field are vastly different and so acknowledging and understanding those spectrums are critical for treatment.

However, in acknowledging those spectrums it allows for the phrase “person A is more blind than person B” and it makes perfect sense because for both those spectrums lower scores are directly related to that “blind” classifier and higher scores to “sighted”. So it works perfectly well to describe the relationship between two individuals on those spectrums even if neither is definitionally blind.

This gets extra confusing when it’s unclear which spectrum axis is being compared.

Every human is blind compared to a spy satellite. ~according to visual accuity~

Every spy satellite is blind compared to the average human. ~according to visual field~

Often the way around this is to take those 2 spectrums and combine them into one score to create a “blindness spectrum”. Depending on how one reduces the 2 dimensions down to a single 1 dramatically changes how “impaired” one individual is compared to another, re-introduces the issues faced with the binary classification and additionally can result in many who meet the technical definition above having the same “blindness score” as a sighted person.

In many ways this is worse than the binary classifier because it introduced addition biases, errors and distortions between the root symptoms, in this case visual accuity and field, which prevents actually understanding and helping an individual.

These issues get significantly magnified when one is taking about a disorder like autism which is defined as an individual with “differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, and repetitive behaviors.” With each item consisting of multiple different measurements and criteria each defining their own spectrum. It’s no longer just describing an axis direction within a 2d space with fairly precise, impartial measurements, but a very specific cluster of individuals within a 6+ dimensional space using highly subjective measurements.

This imprecise and high dimensional space is the actual “autistic spectrum” and yes everyone is somewhere on this spectrum. “Autistic” is just the name of what appears to be a very specific cluster of individuals, however when dealing with high dimensional spaces what counts as a cluster starts to get real weird and illusions start popping up everywhere, like the mythical neurotypical.