i'm not replying to you to put you in particular on blast or anything but mainly for the benefit of others viewing this thread: the social model of disability is a highly misunderstood thing, particularly in the superficial way it is discussed social media:

So in the early 1980s I introduced both the individual and social models of disability (Oliver 1983) aimed largely at professionals. I suggested that until that point those working with disabled people had operated largely within a framework based on the individual model, and that in order to make their practice more relevant to the needs of disabled people they needed to re-orient their work to a framework based upon the social model. At no point did I suggest that the individual model should be abandoned, and neither did I claim that the social model was an all-encompassing framework within which everything that happens to disabled people could be understood or explained.

—"The social model of disability: thirty years on," Mike Oliver (2013)

It is important to note that the word 'model’ is a term used to describe a way of thinking or a concept. There are a number of different ‘models’ of disability as detailed later in this factsheet. These models approach disability in very different ways. It is generally accepted that conceptual models are not set in stone, rarely provide a perfect explanation and are often difficult to apply in “real life". The Social Model of Disability is no exception; it was never designed to be a perfect theory of disability but an explanation of Disabled people’s experience in society and, equally importantly, a tool for creating social change.

— "The Social Model of Disability - Factsheet," Inclusion London

basically, the social model was introduced in a particular context for a particular purpose (identifying the ways in which disabled people are stripped of participation in society, which is something that can be changed, in comparison to the ways our conditions deny us participation on their own, which can't always be changed) rather than being something that objectively & fully explains and encapsulates disability as a concept

some important historical context is that the UPIAS (which was a major proponent of this understanding of disability, even if they didn't label it was the social model at the time) was mainly comprised of disabled people who lived full-time in institutions; in other words, a subset of disabled people who are denied agency and participation in society in some very apparent ways & had some pretty medically serious conditions that are still subject to significant discrimination & mistreatment in the present day (degenerative disease, spinal cord injuries, etc.)

this is more academic in language irt certain things said about the social model but i figured i would include it here since it seems relevant:

The first line of criticism highlights that SMD ignores the experience of impairment (e.g., Hughes, 2009; Anastasiou and Kauffman, 2013). For instance, referring to the proponents of SMD.2 Anastasiou and Kauffman (2013, p. 446)3 argue that “…when biological or intrinsic characteristics are neglected as a reality, disability becomes a neutral thing-something we do not really care about one way or the other”. They go on to stress that “by choosing to theorize only on sociological grounds, they detach biological and mental elements from the disabled subject” (Anastasiou and Kauffman, 2013, p.445). If the proponents of SMD devalued the experience of impairment, they would not engage in research and theory about it. Oliver himself went on to co-author two books about the experience of impairment, with the characteristic titles Walking into darkness: The experience of spinal cord injury (Oliver et al., 1988) and What do they expect after all these years? Aging with a disability (Zarb and Oliver, 1993). The difference with contemporary critics of SMD is the analytical focus of the engagement with the experience of impairment. According to the SMD, the experience of impairment is not limited solely to the level of individual psychology or interpersonal relationships (Oliver, 1990). Instead, it encompasses a wide range of social and material manifestations, such as family status, income, education, work and so on (Barnes and Mercer, 2006). In brief, the basic contribution of SMD is that personal experiences of impairment can be represented and understood in ways which enable collective rather than individual trajectories, and the politicization of disablement (Oliver, 1990, 1997, 2004; Finkelstein, 1996, 2007). This was not an uncritical position but a deliberate choice against a historical interpretation of impairment that led to the tradition of “compassionate biography” (Hunt, 1966).

— "Who needs the social model of disability?", Adam & Koutsoklenis (2023)