Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?
This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.
This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.
And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.
How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?
That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.
I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.
But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?
How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.