All very true, Platypus.
I think the discussions about the importance of handwriting tend to come down to a tendency to lose the forest. What is the principal purpose of handwriting? Presumably to communicate and create permanent (or semi-permanent) products for asynchronous communication. If insisting on physical handwriting interferes with this larger purpose, then handwriting should be the negotiable, not expressive communication. It does appear to have some secondary value in processing language during note-taking, but, as you note, that has more to do with the internal process necessary to rephrase notes into a more compact form than verbatim.
(On a side note, I mentioned this research a little while ago to my youngest, who was then on a NitroType tear. Shortly thereafter, I was informed by said child rather thoroughly of the contents of a recent passage typed. Just to prove that one can process language effectively while typing verbatim! DC's sustained typing speed is over 100 wpm with better than 95% accuracy.)
Using handwriting is very much optional in our homeschool. Everyone learns manuscript and cursive letter formation, and practices to sufficient proficiency to be able to sign a creditable signature (in script of your choice), fill out a form (decreasingly necessary these days), and write a one-line thank you note. For all other expressive language, use the modality of your choice (manuscript, cursive, keyboarding, speech-to-text, scribing when they were younger). I have one who does artistic hand-lettering as a hobby, and another who used STT prior to acquiring fluency in typing, and now uses typing only. Both of them, by the way, generate beautiful hand and digital art, but one is very obviously dysgraphic.
I have variations of this conversation with my students often, many of whom perceive themselves as poor writers, when what they really are is poor handwriters.
