> but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society No it's not. It's a function of the person's relationship t

> but the extent to which is it disabling is a function of the individual's relationship to society No it's not. It's a function of the person's relationship to glasses. The same way deaf people are no longer disabled when you restore their hearing. The only difference is that we can all obviously see that depriving children of glasses for the sake of forming a "blind community" is an utterly ridiculous thing to do. What I'm saying is that there are two different cures for deafness. The first is to engineer a world in which it is not necessary to hear, and the second is to restore the individual's hearing. I am of the belief that there is no substantive difference between these two methods as it relates to the argument being made against cochlear implants. Of the two different cures, that is more effective which is the soul issue people take with it. > This is the social model of disability, it's a well established framework that has had immense practical value in the medical treatment of a huge range of disability, including adhd and hearing loss. The conclusion they reach is that a disability can be treated by altering the environment of the person with it. I reach this same conclusion without the need to reference some abstract "society" which causes all these problems. > It's so so shitty to dismiss it as "they are wrong" when you clearly don't even know the absolute basics of the history and practice of this field. Well they are wrong. If you find the truth to be shitty, I suggest you bury your head in the sand.