Reasonable concerns, but I don't think the "subhuman" terminology captures their meaning in the slightest. I generally don't consider "human" to be synonymous with "useful", "reliable", or "competent".

First Lazarus Long offers a test of humanity that is open to all. The deaf, the homosexual, the Jew, etc, all may pass Long's test.

By "Long's test" you still mean mathematics, right? "May"? Homosexuals "may" have heterosexual sex, deaf people "may" regain their hearing, and so on. Your statement seems to assume the very definition of humanity it's trying to support.