>many disabilities are permanent. and the healthy thing you can do is accept.

Still, given the opportunity they would rather not be disabled. That's the difference. Accepting their disability is one thing. Taking pride in it, or wanting to be identified as their disability is another. The latter, I would say, is rather rare.

​

>having representation of disabled people will make them more visible and
encourage more accessible infrastructure and actually making disabled
people less disabled.

That's not quite true. Representation generally makes people more visible to the common person. The common person who is not in charge of deciding how the infrastructure is designed. That would be lawmakers. And the eye of the law neither ignores disabled people (there are tons of regulations about accessibility for building infrastructure), nor would it care about scoliosis Barbie. You're reading a bit too much into this.

Well, good for them, then. Personally, I find this a bit odd, as those with disabilities may not approach the concept of representation the same way as, say, people of a certain culture would. Like, if you've got African heritage, then that's something you take pride in, something you consider a part of your identity and want people to recognize you as. People with disabilities would like to just not be disabled. They don't particularly like being disabled, and many don't want to be treated and recognized as one with disability. In that regard, this kinda representation seems... more icky, I guess?

Is it even a market? Yea, disabled people exist. Do they want disabled dolls? Do they even care about that kind of representation? Based on the comments, they don't seem to.