"Did I Stutter?" What are your thoughts about the Stuttering Pride Movement?

"Did I Stutter?" What are your thoughts about the Stuttering Pride Movement? According to Wikipedia: Stuttering pride (or stammering pride) is a social movement that repositions stuttering as a valuable and respectable way of speaking. The stuttering pride movement challenges the pervasive societal narrative of stuttering as a defect, repositioning stuttering as a form of vocal and linguistic diversity that enriches our language, ideas, and art forms The stuttering pride movement encourages people who stutter to take pride in their unique speech patterns and consider what stuttering tells us about the world. The movement foregrounds an emerging stammering culture. Such a stuttering culture highlights the power of creative writers, artists, and musicians to subvert concepts of 'normative' speech through the power of expressive and generative dysfluency. In this sense, stutterers' writing, music, visual arts, and performances enable people to understand, hear, see, and feel stuttering in new ways by challenging and resisting fluency norms. Stuttering pride has drawn ideas and inspiration from disability rights, in particular the development of the social model of disability and the neurodiversity paradigm. The movement advocates for societal adjustments to allow stutterers equal access to education and employment opportunities. Also there is a some kind of 'manifesto' of the movement, which I quoted some excerpt below: Put most simply, we are a group of stutterers who want to be heard on our own terms, with two main goals: 1) resisting speech assimilation and 2) advocating for dysfluency pride. We are not a self-help group per se. Rather, we consider ourselves as part of the disability rights movement. Gaining their momentum in the 70s, disability rights activists and theorists have insisted that what we understand as “disability” is not primarily a medical but a political issue of inclusion and exclusion. Human traits are tremendously varied – eye and hair color, bone structure, height, physical and mental capabilities. So why, disability politics asks, are only particular forms of variation marked as “abnormal”? Gaining momentum in the 70s, disability rights activists and theorists have insisted that what we understand as “disability” is not primarily a medical but a political issue of inclusion and exclusion. Human traits are tremendously varied – eye and hair color, bone structure, height, physical and mental capabilities. So why, disability politics asks, are only particular forms of variation marked as “abnormal”? types of people is a reflection of what and who we value as a society. Disability activists and theorists thus argue that (to varying degrees depending on who you ask) disability is not an individual and biological condition, but is a complex interaction between bodies, cultural values, and social/economic structures. “Abnormal/normal” and “disabled/abled” are, therefore, first and foremost political categories used to construct our world in oppressive ways. Because of this, disability rights movements refuse to believe that disability is fundamentally a medical issue, and instead see it as a matter of civil rights and justice. We demand to be included in society as equal participants just as we are.