cenkrett:

A lot of effort is expended arguing that people with stigmatized traits are still completely “normal”, and therefore they shouldn’t feel bad about those traits or be mistreated for having them.  I understand the goal of this, and I think it’s admirable, but in many cases I feel it approaches the issue in the wrong way.  It’s not whether or not those traits are “normal” that matters, but whether or not those traits make someone bad or deserving of harsh treatment.  If something only occurs in a small percentage of the population, there might be tens of millions of people across the world like that, but to call it “normal” is not realistic or honest.  It might be naturally-occurring, and it might be benign (or primarily so), but it doesn’t make sense to call a trait “normal” when only applies to a small portion of the population.  That doesn’t mean it is something to be hated, mocked, or feared, just that it is relatively uncommon.

Even when measured against the diverse whole of human experience, some traits really are genuinely abnormal.  That’s not an inherently bad thing, and it shouldn’t be necessary to label a trait as something “normal” in order for it to be accepted.  The goal should not be to describe everyone as normal, but to destigmatize abnormality.