"But what I'm considering here are physical disabilities that are not a difference (I firmly believe intersexuality is not a disability), but lack of functionality/ability available to others."
Speaking as a partially sighted, androgynous, hormone-"imbalanced" person, the doctors who cared for these various aspects of me never made the distinction you're making. (Incidentally, intersexuality, which I don't have, does sometimes - not invariably, of course - come with functionality difficulties, as I'm sure you'll recall, since you seem to be up to speed on this topic.) The doctors treated both my hormone difference and my partial sightedness as medical conditions that needed to be treated.
I think that there is a difference between people who have functional problems and people who don't . . . but determining where the line is drawn is awfully difficult. I have functional problems as a partially sighted person, simply because I live in a world that's set up for sighted people. If I lived in a world where everyone had my eye condition, I would have no functional problems (other than the functional problems shared by the rest of the human race). So, from that perspective, what I have is a difference, not a disability.
In practice, of course, blind folk usually call themselves disabled and intersexed folk usually don't. I just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that those labels are social constructions, reflecting society's view on what is or isn't a disabling condition.
"Particular readers (like megwrites) may not find various speculative societies personally appealing, but that does not make them invalid speculation."
I think I'm only bothered when it's clear that the author just hasn't given thought to the topic they're writing about - such as themantically trumpeting the future elimination of all disabilities, when it's clear that they haven't actually considered whether this is possible or good. If the trumpeting is done by the characters alone, or if it's clear that the author has approached their theme in a thoughtful manner (as the commenters in this thread have, hurrah), then, like you, I'm not concerned by unappealing futures. Part of SF is dystopia, after all.
no subject
Speaking as a partially sighted, androgynous, hormone-"imbalanced" person, the doctors who cared for these various aspects of me never made the distinction you're making. (Incidentally, intersexuality, which I don't have, does sometimes - not invariably, of course - come with functionality difficulties, as I'm sure you'll recall, since you seem to be up to speed on this topic.) The doctors treated both my hormone difference and my partial sightedness as medical conditions that needed to be treated.
I think that there is a difference between people who have functional problems and people who don't . . . but determining where the line is drawn is awfully difficult. I have functional problems as a partially sighted person, simply because I live in a world that's set up for sighted people. If I lived in a world where everyone had my eye condition, I would have no functional problems (other than the functional problems shared by the rest of the human race). So, from that perspective, what I have is a difference, not a disability.
In practice, of course, blind folk usually call themselves disabled and intersexed folk usually don't. I just don't want us to lose sight of the fact that those labels are social constructions, reflecting society's view on what is or isn't a disabling condition.
"Particular readers (like megwrites) may not find various speculative societies personally appealing, but that does not make them invalid speculation."
I think I'm only bothered when it's clear that the author just hasn't given thought to the topic they're writing about - such as themantically trumpeting the future elimination of all disabilities, when it's clear that they haven't actually considered whether this is possible or good. If the trumpeting is done by the characters alone, or if it's clear that the author has approached their theme in a thoughtful manner (as the commenters in this thread have, hurrah), then, like you, I'm not concerned by unappealing futures. Part of SF is dystopia, after all.