It seems that one of the arguments(and by arguments, I mean a sentence that begins with or includes "yes, but....") to the acceptance of diversity is the claim that while diversity has its place, so does the need for aid. The claim seems to indicate that each is separate.
Solidarity is canceled out when too much individualism is sacrificed and disability is not just a culture. Individual disabled people have rights and responsibilities, whether they subscribe to the conventions of any particular culture or not. Their unique characteristics are no more than different when their needs are accommodated and given the same respect as anyone else's more conventional needs.
Because we live in an exclusionary society, extra encouragement and empowerment are at least some of the accommodations that allies can provide to help compensate for the errors in judgment that the broader society continues to make. Such attitudes are also what leads to better accommodations, more inclusion, and ultimately more responsibility (with it's rewards) just as condescending charity (which is often disguised as part of acceptance) leads to the opposite.
It seems that when diversity is an added ideal to the needs of disabled people, accepting these people as just different is limited by the idea that diversity is only so practical. It's as though diversity is somehow not *really* realistic....but we must say it....right? I mean. How would we look otherwise?:/
I think the problem is that people don't know how to manage their glorification of one ability without also showing the part of themselves which shows their contempt and exclusion of people without that ability.
There doesn't seem to be an understanding by most people that the societal glorification of skills and ability is accompanied with respect and dignity. I don't think it's widely acknowledged that respect and dignity are often not shown to the people who don't possess the characteristics that society idolizes.
The biggest problem with rewarding a person for (what is described as) overcoming their deficits is that we have a difficult time doing that without doing the opposite for someone who doesn't. The truth is we have no idea what any individual possesses in terms of obstacles and limitations nor can we ever know what someone is capable of. As a society we often claim that we have the ability to identify effort when, in reality, it's often an arrogant and prejudiced assumption.
Any categorization can be used to encourage or discourage people but the acceptance of diversity can create classifications without the need for arrogant judgment. People aren't great or terrible and that by no means makes anyone somewhere in between the two extremes. Each person is an individual who can be encouraged in the areas they show strength and accepted when their lack of skills presents no threat to anyone else. If categorizations don't do the same, then we don't need them.
A categorization can help define some of the aspects of an individual so that the same accommodation can be produced on a larger scale and at less cost. If part of that categorization is seen to include contempt and part of it is glorified, the unnecessary and inappropriate standard of judgments is further encouraged. If behavior gets judged similarly because the aid to fix that is mass produced and sold as a public program, corrupt mass producers will abuse their authority to determine "normality."
Greatness is an act, not an acquired ability or genetic gift. What an individual does to help the others in their life is great. Whatever helps them to be able to do that isn't something that can be earned or acquired. It's just the decision people make when they care.