I can't take this too seriously. Either you accept transracial, transsexual, and amputee wannabees, or you don't. I do. Activists generally it seems don't, or at least the ones screaming the loudest.
We can also all admit that something is a disorder and still accept those people for who they are. You don't have to go all crazy and try to ban homosexuality. And you don't have to go crazy and try to destroy Rachel Dolezal. We can be respectful.
And if these some people want to view it that way to help themselves feel better or for whatever personal motives, that's their right. However, nobody else should be obligated to suspend a rational assessment of reality because of how it might offend anyone's emotional and irrational notion.
Whether it comes from a disease, and accident or something congenital, deafness is certainly at least a defect in normal human function and needs to be recognized as such by those who could strive to eliminate it as a problem.
The use of the word "cure" in this context is a perfectly logical choice of wording. Should we even consider whether some deaf people are offended by this word? It seems like the polite thing to do, but maybe it's a slippery slope that compromises the objectivity of science and clear communication of scientific findings.
I don't know if that's the dominant view and preference, but if that's the case, perhaps we should all learn to respect their culture, as much as we're all learning to respect (up to some point) people's self-identified identities, preferred pronouns, etc. It's a matter of education and cultural change so that more people are aware and respectful.
For those saying that science should not consider people's preferences, that's true but communicating about science definitely should. At least up to some point where they're not offending a large number of people.
(..Hmm, but should they really? What about religious people who are offended by the idea of evolution..)