[NeoBasilisk]

Calling it a "flaw" is probably going too far. It is a simple acknowledgement that if your physical traits or abilities diverge significantly from what is average, then your quality of life will suffer in some way.

Depending on your condition, maybe you won't suffer much of a loss, or maybe you will suffer significantly. The simple reality is that society is not ever going to fully accommodate someone that is 4'6" (137cm).

As a somewhat irrelevant example, I'm colorblind, and I don't see any redeeming value in that trait. It's a mild inconvenience, and it there were a treatment to make it go away without significant side effects, that would be nice. There is no reason to be "proud" of your physical attributes that you had no part in creating. If you are part of a historically marginalized group, then pride in your group can emerge as a method of coping with that oppression, but otherwise there is no point.

[okonomiyaki3000]

Being short is not a flaw but dwarfism is not the same as simply being shorter than average. It is objectively a flaw because it can directly lead to various other health problems.

Van Gogh was colorblind. Had his parents been able to cure him of it at a young age, we would likely not have any of his works now. I'm not trying to make any argument by saying this. I don't know what it means.

[ALittleLight]

Perhaps he would've been a better artist without being color blind.

Either way, a person's life and health should be up to them, or, if they're a child, to their parents with their involvement. We shouldn't be condemning people to preventable medical defects just because it might produce benefits in some impossible to imagine way.

[kelnos]

> Had his parents been able to cure him of [colorblindness] at a young age, we would likely not have any of his works now.

That's not at all a logically consistent argument. His art might have been better without the colorblindness. Or it might have just merely been different, but equally well-celebrated.

Regardless, you can't make decisions based on extremely unknowable hypothetical futures. If Van Gogh hadn't created any art at all, the world would still turn, and no one would know the difference. It's natural to imagine a world without Van Gogh's art with sadness when you already have his art; but had it never existed, no one would be around to care.

[Aethelwulf]

> Van Gogh was colorblind.

This seems to be speculation from a Japanese researcher who wrote a colour-blindness simulating app.

[autoexec]

> There is no reason to be "proud" of your physical attributes that you had no part in creating.

Yeah, it seems to do more harm than good to turn a disability into an identity. I totally get that nobody wants to feel "broken" and it probably makes some people feel better to say there's nothing at all wrong with them, but it becomes an issue when it leads to attacks against people who want to help others overcome their limitations or people who want their own limitations overcome.

If I could give my children even small relatively insignificant advantages, or help them avoid some of the struggles I've had to overcome I'd want to.