Disabilities are disabilities for a reason. A person without legs objectively has fewer options then fully legged person, a person with deafness has fewer options than a person with hearing, etc. you can accommodate these issues but that doesn't mean they aren't issues. So long as society can't cure them then mitigating them is worthy but there isn't any cause to act as if the latter is more moral.
The usefulness and liability of traits depends on societal context. Take the example being mentioned. Actually functional cat ears, while theoretically an enhancement in a vacuum of "you can hear better", would probably be a net negative in our modern noise polluted society. I'm already rather particular in keeping noise down when trying to sleep.
Is being heterosexual a disability that needs to be cured? That absolutely results in you having fewer options, in the very important area of "romantic partner selection" no less. Where do you think ability to feel pain, or average height, should be set at? Setting it higher or lower will be useful in some contexts and liability in others. My physical body isn't going to deliver Olympic gold medal tier performances with any amount of training, that definitely sounds like fewer options to me. I have no sense of smell, which sounds like a liability, but also means I am immune to farts.
Even traits that seem relatively straightforward probably aren't. I have a perpetual headache that never goes away, which I'd like to get rid of. But what is causing it? If the answer is something like autism or anxiety, the answer is its a manifestation of my personality, and fixing it would mean altering my identity in ways whose effects are uncertain. What if reducing my anxiety to cure my headaches cripples my long term planning skills and ruins my life? Well that's what my anxiety says anyways.
That's why your food example fundamentally doesn't work. Food insecurity is the product of society, disability is the product of biology. Society can make the latter easier but if we can correct for biology then we can help the people suffering for it. That's progress and should be embraced.
Phenylketonuria is a genetic disorder that causes brain damage, until it was discovered that with the right diet it causes little or no problems at all. Which means that a problem once seen as an inherited biological disability was actually a mere societal problem, because literally anyone takes brain damage if they eat a sufficiently wrong diet. The truth is that we all have limited options in some way, and we all are accommodated by society in ways that expand them. In the past "not being able to walk a mile without being exhausted" would've been a fatal liability, now it'd be more of an inconvenience.
I'm sure that we can all find some examples of trait that is "this will irreversibly affect your quality of life for the worse and society cannot accommodate it" but that's going to be the exception not the rule. There are tons of traits like "magnitude of sense, physique, or mentality" which are going to have unclear contextual answers. This is why I'm probably more partial to "brain in a vat controlling robot sleeves" as a transhumanist endgame. There you don't have to answer the question of "what setting should we put the knobs at" you can just adjust it as need be.
