I'm not sure how to properly answer questions like these because the application of "normalfag" is inconsistent as a rule. You'll see similar terms ("normie" "norman" "normal") used by all sorts of different people who other anyone on the basis of their own insecurities. If you have an eating disorder, anyone who doesn't is a normie. If you're a femcel, anyone who has ever had a boyfriend is a normie. If you're a CSA survivor, anyone who wasn't abused as a child is normal. If you're avoidant, anyone who has friends is a normie. If you're lesbian, anyone who isn't is a normie. It makes sense that you would care about those you perceive to be more similar to you; they are less likely to threaten your status as [insert identifier], and perhaps (if you are capable of feeling) you might have a one-sided emotional attachment to them. Though, not everyone will see things that way. There are also many who should be outcasts by your definitions who would not hold up the same lines as you between themselves and other people. Or conversely, they might consider you outside themselves on some other basis. Of course, for many of these qualifiers, you wouldn't know this information just walking by random strangers.
As soon as you accept your defects you cannot see the same system of self vs. other in this way, because those particular flaws are no longer a significant part of your identity. Is this desirable? I'm not sure. Perhaps feeling as part of an in-group conveys some benefits, though I imagine positive associations would be better than shared victimhood (which normalfag and associated terms usually convey.) I wonder also if acting on these potential immediate emotional attachments (or debasements) is a good thing. Does it prevent you from seeing people is new ways? What doors do you close by passing judgments so easily?
As for myself, I have been hostile to those I perceived that way. I feel differently now. Everyone is like a stranger, and I see no reason to be mean or kind.