I’m a bit confused as to what the ideal outcome is here.

Is the message you’re making that cripnormativity is bad? Yet who you define as cripnormative seem to be anyone who:

Is able to get services and proper help and/or

Is able to pass as nondisabled and/or
Is able to be successful and known for things other than being disabled (ie Stephen Hawking) despite being severely disabled and/or

Is disabled while holding political views you see as detrimental to disabled people

Like, what did Stephen Hawking do wrong? Are you meaning to say he’s cripnormative the way a conservative Republican politician is? But there’s not that much making him similar.

Is the argument that non cripnormative people deserve equal treatment and access to services that cripnormative people do? I mean I agree with this but the overall message seems to be also trying to claim that people you deem cripnormative in some way are actively harmful when some of them are just existing and doing their thing and being successful while disabled.