The term "cultural genocide" is clickbait; the main bad part about genocide is all the humans who die, I don't get as upset about nobody making the traditional baklava recipe anymore especially when they could if they wanted to. Culture isn't alive, it doesn't die, it can't be killed; it can be lost to history and that can be sad, but shouldn't have the same connotations as acutal murder.

"Cultural genocide is the systematic destruction of traditions, values, language, and other elements which make a one group of people distinct from other groups" - having a cochlear implant does not stop someone using sign language, does not inherently change their values or force them into different traditions, and giving one person an implant they asked for is not a systematic destruction. If they do willingly want to use sign language and so on after getting an implant, the culture won't be lost. If nobody willingly wants to use sign language of their own free choice, the culture may be lost and that's better than the alternative of forcing people against their will into a state where they have no choice but to keep the culture going, for the sake of the culture. That is, hearinged people forcing cochlear implants on unconsenting deaf people would be bad, deaf people forcing deaf people to stay deaf against their will (e.g. by getting cochlear implants banned) would be bad. Medical people (hearing or deaf) offering cochlear implants, and deaf people making a case to tempt deaf people to stay deaf, and the result being a free choice for invididuals, isn't genocide. You could move the point to hearinged parents of deaf children, and say that they will never let the child experience deaf culture, but parents always have the right to act as a proxy for their young child - if deaf people can't convince the parents that deafness has value, what right do they have to take the choice away, anymore than a Christian has rights to force atheist parents to raise their child as a Christian and then let the child decide, for the sole purpose of not letting Christianity be lost?

> "Many gay people view homosexuality as a trait with intrinsic value (this is the whole point of pride)."

And nobody should be forced out of that situation unconsentingly, or discriminated against for being homosexual - regardless of whether it was nature, nurture, or free choice. Neither should people be forced to stay in that situation unconsentingly if there was another option and they wished to take it. You could say that the choice isn't free and fair in a world where there is a dominant heterosexual society which discriminates and abuses homosexuals, and that of course that would "force" (indirectly) people to opt for conversion therapy unfairly (if it worked) and without freely given consent. But I'd turn that round and say that forcing someone else to stay homosexual against their will, to increase the overall numbers in an attempt to redress the bad treatment that way to improve the chances of a better life for the forcers, is bad; if the dominant society is abusive it could be noble to fight against that, but it's valid for an individual to choose to join it instead to have an easier life. People saying "baldness should not be a problem" have a point; people taking Finasteride and having hair transplants don't have to agree with that.