I'm actually an example of this - I was born without the Mystic Eyes Of Depth Perception so I'll never know what stereoscopic vision "feels like".

If you turn something or move around it, even if you only use one eye to do this, your brain puts together the succeeding images to create a three-dimensional visual experience of the scene. Here is an example. If you're curious about "what it's like" to have stereo vision, in my opinion it is not far off from this, without the movement.

I propose that "qualia" is a word that, like "microevolution", is mainly used by people who are very confused (and dissolving the question is the appropriate approach).

Could you expand on this? I've seen before here the notion that the term "qualia" should be gotten rid of entirely, but I've never really understood it.

For instance, asking what kinds of processes are capable of producing qualia, in order to figure out which animals are capable of feeling pain, certainly seems relevant for utilitarian ethics. (You could reword the question as "which animals can feel pain", which avoids using the term 'qualia', but you're at heart still referring to the same concept.)

Depth perception can be gained through vision therapy, even if you've never had it before. This is something I'm looking into doing, since I also grew up without depth perception.