I think a lot of people who have their feet in multiple commonly "either/or" cultures have written quite a lot about the struggle to establish their own identity given those cultures framing many things in terms of, for lack of a better word, sole/primary membership.
I'm not sure anyone can say better or worse, in a useful fashion, objectively - more options can also lead to more ambiguity and stress, as with anything in life.
They're not wrong to say that by necessity, your experience is going to be different if it's defined in terms of choices made before you had agency, that are not mutable - your lived experiences are going to be very different if you cannot hear at all, and spent 10000 hours or w/e framing everything in your life around that, versus being able to hear.
Unfortunately, I think absent something else, this will go the same way as most narratives of cultures where there are utilitarian reasons to not remain in it - people will often choose the route of most visible potential benefit, in these situations.
Something more "ideal", in theory, would be if we could ignore critical periods, and just let people choose in adulthood to learn verbal language, but even that presents the problem that the majority dictates the "easy" option, and by nature, people who are not in that group will sometimes be the ones acting as sandpaper on rough edges in that interaction, as they're not as well-polished. (Look at all the government systems in the US that don't know how to handle more than the common "firstname lastname", for example.) So even that option presents the problems of utilitarian optimization resulting in rational actors just opting out of the more demanding route.
e: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say I think any of what I just described is "good" - I think homogeneity in human experience deprives everyone of enrichment in the variation of life. But I don't see a way to optimize for this where given the ability, a lot of people don't choose the lower-friction route in their lives.