This is not a response to our argument.
The problem with speech assimilation is that it does not position itself as pain or harm reduction. Speech therapy positions itself as being about achieving so-called developmental goals and in doing so, implies that people who lack verbal speech or ease of verbal speech are not as worthwhile human beings.
If speech therapy was only about pain, it would not consider dysfluency itself to be a problem, but would only concern itself with external side effects.
We know too well that speech assimilation is sold to stutterers as a path to citizenship and civility.
That path comes through a relationship of subordination.
To be dysfluent is to need reform, to require professional help, and to require services.
Such services do not come freely available as techniques that can be easily shared or known about, but require submission to educational or therapeutic institutions that are reliant on funding.
Often, through wide-ranged systematic shaming of stutterers, parents of dysfluent people are urged to participate in a cure for dysfluency both financially and through directed action in their relationships.
Speech therapy and its ideology of speech assimilation is an ideology of submission by disabled people and their families to professional-controlled speech norms that can only be gained through giving up money and authority over the body.
Stuttering exemplifies beauty, even if that beauty is unrecognized. The staccato play of syllables, slowed down repeated reaction, even perhaps onomatopoeic repetitions, indicating the staying power of a specific topic or speaking to an unrevealed intensity inherent to experience.
The intention of quieting the stutter, of organizing or trapping it is to capture a way that bodies move. For individuals who make their living from speech therapy, the shame of stuttering secures their work. The perceived authority of medical charts over differing cultural experiences ensures that the speech therapist always has work. It is not that all treatments or elements of speech therapy are detrimental, but rather that the discipline frames differing speech as undeveloped speech: the production of speech difference is rendered a speech problem that requires intervention. As long as dysfluency is produced as a pathology, speech therapists will always speak as superiors to their clients, they will always reentrench a notion of the speech difference as a deficiency of body and sometimes of motivation. If there is a value in breathing, in controlling the body or in self-regulation, such ideas can be shared among dysfluent people instead of from a position of authority. The refusal of speech pathology for dysfluent people is a refusal of lifelong subordination.