Of course, such arguments are comical. No matter what method you use, you're going to have a system that will be incompatible with somebody's disability. For example, the number of people who cannot use pen and paper are likely vastly outnumbered, by orders of magnitude, by those that have ADHD and find computers vastly more distracting than pen and paper. There's no way to deliver an exam in a single form/medium without leaving people out. You can have alternate forms to accommodate them, but Gwl would whine that this is othering or demeaning. He wants every single person's needs taken care of, while also demanding that everyone be treated in the exact same way. These are too mutually incompatible goals. Equality isn't equity.

Gwl's stance is profoundly anti-disabled. He has an attitude that any accommodation that places disabled students in any way apart is demeaning to the disabled and thus not an option. Of course, that is an impossible standard, as it's impossible to accommodate every disabled person simultaneously, because many disabilities are mutually-exclusive. If you give a written exam and provide a secondary auditory form for the blind students, the blind students will feel othered. If you give an exam in audio form and offer a secondary visual form for the deaf students, the deaf students will feel called out. Universal design is a fine ideal, but it's not actually achievable in all but a handful of cases.

When you set your standard as, "disabled students can never be made to feel othered in any way from the rest of the students," then you make it impossible to actually accommodate the real needs of disabled students.