So while this line of logic is clever, as by definition all technology is "assistive" . It then relegates the term "assistive technology" as entirely redundant.
We all very well know that this is not what "assistive technology" means because if that's what it meant, we wouldn't haven't invented the term.
Assistive technology (AT) is any item, piece of equipment, software program, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities. [ct.gov]
It's those last two words "with disabilities" that are crucial in the definition of AT. Because if it isn't being used by a person with disabilities it's just technology.
The "problem" is that there is so much crossover between common technology used by everyone and "assistive technology" that it is sometimes difficult to determine when something qualifies as being "assistive" . From audio-books (assistive for the blind but useful to the sighted) to ADA accessible sloped sidewalk (assistive to those in wheelchairs but useful to anyone pulling a suitcase). Sometimes the same thing can be assistive to one person but still useful to others.
Trying to redefined foundational educational goals, such as the ability to read (in the strictly mechanical sense) as the ability to comprehend (which is a different educational goal) is dismissive of the fundamental nature of learning as layered construct.
So yes while you are correct that no one has the "right to decide who gets to use the technology they need and who doesn't" Society and the education system that we have built does get to decide what are the foundational requirements of an education and when exceptions are made to those requirements. That is the debate that people are having.
It wasn't very long ago that everyone was required to learn to write in cursive, this is no longer taught, kids don't learn this anymore. Reading however is still a fundamental educational goal. Maybe someday it won't be and we will raise entire generations that can no longer read an instruction manual and always watch YouTube to learn how to do things. But we aren't there yet.
So yes while reading comprehension is by far the more valuable skill, the raw mechanical process of reading is still a crucial educational goal because anyone that fails to achieve proficiency will be forever disadvantaged. This is why early education systems focus on it and don't like to provide shortcuts around it unless absolutely necessary. Yes there will be some students that will never be able to be proficient at reading text on a page, but there are also students that would easily give up on the hard learning process if given an easy way around it.
The question then becomes should students who are not disabled be allowed to use technology (which for them is not assistive technology) to gain an advantage or short-circuit the learning process? That is why people have such an issue with these tools being widely available. And if the answer to that is that 8 out of 10 learners need this kind of assistance, then the public is rightfully going to ask why and why is the education system failing to prepare the majority of students with a core foundational skill such as reading.
Personally I think every learner should have access to whatever tools they need to learn, I'm a big fan of technology in the classroom, all kinds of technology. I'm probably further a long that side than most people as I think even the use of tools like chatGPT should be actively used and taught in classrooms not discouraged. But it's important to understand the other side of the debate and use well crafted arguments.
Pointing out that all technology is "assistive" is not a particularly persuasive argument.
