Instead, a neutral language such as "genetically disadvantaged" should be available for accurate and objective use

This is part of why euphemisms are so dangerous - they are often phrases which aren't accurate. Intelligence is not just genetic. Parasite load at an early age, nutrition, lead exposure, some aspects of parental care can all impact intelligence.

People who inherited or "won" more intelligence early on should NOT be raised atop the goddamn miserable status heap by the sole "virtue" of said intelligence

Are they though? This has a lot to do with what one means by status. If anything we have the opposite problem. Look at how many people use "I could never do math" or similar statements as a status raiser.

This is just one incident of many that convince me that the anti-PC crowd is low-status largely not because they tell inconvenient truths (although the brightest among them sure do), but because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills.

If you think the "anti-PC crowd" is low status that may say more about who you spend time with than anything else. In much of the US, even in fairly left-wing areas, self-identifying as not PC can be quite effective as a status raiser. People who go out of their way to be "anti-PC" might be low status but that's more because that often involves high degrees of obnoxiousness, is often a cover for genuine bigotry (e.g.someone claiming that their use of the word "kike" is because of their refusal to be be PC), and are defining themselves as against something else. It is very hard to be high status when one is defined in terms of one's opposition. But that's all distinct from being blunt and saying "stupid" when one means some form of "intelligence substantially below the average or the level generally necessary to function in society".

And because they have a number of... ethically shaky aspects about their thought.

What is ethically shaky here? That there are genuinely stupid people? That we should acknowledge it? That some of that is genetic?