[sweezyjeezy]

If all humans could echo-locate except a subset who couldn't, I would say that group is at a small disadvantage, yes, because the set of things the main group can do is 'objectively' greater. I don't know how relevant it would be for us especially in the daytime, but hey.

[alexey-salmin]

I agree. However, whether all kids should receive gene therapy to develop the echo-location once the science allows for that is a more nuanced question.

[geraldwhen]

If most buildings lacked light because the vast majority just echolocated, then the those unable would be disabled.

It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability.

[alexey-salmin]

> It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability.

That's what most people normally do, yes. Then many people out there define an "ability to enjoy hetero sex" as a "normal human experience" and therefore see gayness as a disability that needs a cure.

I'm not arguing about the conclusion here, but about the method and the basis for deriving this conclusion.

The initial comment in this thread declared deafness to be an "actual defect" while gayness "is just people being inherently gay". Such division is completely arbitrary and doesn't follow from any law of nature. Only from current societal views which change a lot with time.

[sweezyjeezy]

> doesn't follow from any law of nature

Natural selection gave us hearing.

[alexey-salmin]

Right, and it also gave us a strong desire for the opposite sex. So if you draw the line based on this principle then gayness and deafness will fall on the same side of this line, whichever side it is.

Hence I write that the initial comment making the distinction between gayness being obviously OK and deafness being obviously not OK, look arbitrary to me. This division is cultural.