WMN: t3_3h8y7m_t1_cu5ej8t

[TITLE]

CMV: There is a 'Normal' state and Homosexuality and Autism and the like are irregular states.

[CurryThighs]

"Normal" (adj.) Conforming to the standard or common type. --- By the above definition, we can be sure that there is a 'Normal' human being. Or at the very least, various 'Normal' states to make up a 'Normal' human being. Anything that is in the majority is a 'Normal' state. So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. This means that states such as Transgender, Homosexual, Autistic etc. are not 'Normal'. They are in fact 'different'. and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. They are different. This does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative. Nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive. They are simply different. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[M3rcaptan]

The essence of your argument is, you put all the people in a hypothetical pot, melt them all together and get one person, and you measure whether or not a person is normal by the extent to which that person resembles the pot person in their various traits. Except you'll probably have a hard time finding anyone who actually resembles the pot person. Sure, you could define "normal" that way, but your definition would be useless because it doesn't describe anyone or anything.

[Meteodrive]

I live in a country where we have inalienable rights, Where all men where created equal. Mean median and mode belong in math class not in child rearing. Kindly take your passive hate and stfu. Appeal to Intuition

[IndianPhDStudent]

You are using the word "normal" in the statistical sense of the word. However, the word has a cultural baggage of being a descriptor of how things SHOULD be, while "abnormal" has a stigma attached to it. A more neutral word would be "typical" or "normative".

[CommanderShep]

Your thinking is flawed because it puts people into box. I'm not sure if you heard of Kinsey, but he shows sexuality is a scale, not black or white. Likewise, some people have symptoms of autism, and some people are close but do not qualify. Saying that there is a norm disregards the complexity of individuality

[jmsolerm]

[STA-CITE]>man. [END-CITE]Woman, I think. I may be wrong, though, but that's besides the point. You missed *right-handed*. See, the thing with calling those normal/abnormal is not a matter of *description*. People using those terms are not just trying to neutrally remind us of some fact, as if we had forgotten. They are hiding an implicit *prescriptive* claim that people not matching certain "norms" should be discriminated, or perhaps that there is no way around their being discriminated (and therefore we should do nothing about it). We should understand "normal" not in a statistical sense, but in terms of perception of how things should be.

[nmhunate]

I think left handed people are weird and are most certainly not normal.

[jmsolerm]

And how often do you see them called "abnormal"?

[nmhunate]

I call them abnormal all the time.

[jmsolerm]

I'd say you're more abnormal than anyone else, then.

[nmhunate]

You sound like one of those sinistrous people.

[Aubenabee]

OP, I'm legitimately interested (not passively aggressively asking): why is it so important to establish what is normal and what is aberrant? Moreover, why is it "desperately" important that we do so?

[twelvemongooses]

The idea of there being a singular "normal" template for humans is ridiculous because humanity depends on a degree of genetic diversity to survive. A single person that operates independantly of society is highly, highly abnormal. A population where everyone had the same template would be a non-functional society. [STA-CITE]>we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. [END-CITE]Why? And why so desperately?

[pensivegargoyle]

Being a brilliant engineer or a world-famous concert pianist isn't normal either. We should never confuse a judgement of commonality with a judgement of value.

[commandrix]

From the point of view of an autistic person, the autistic person might be normal and completely fine and it's everybody else who is, basically, insane and unpredictable. You could basically plot a Bell curve that would give you an "average normal" where most people can be found somewhere near the center of the curve, but how do you diplomatically tell the people on the fringes that they aren't "normal?"

[nikoberg]

[STA-CITE]>Conforming to the standard or common type. [END-CITE]This doesn't imply the existence of exactly one standard or common type. It's normal to be a doctor. That doesn't mean it's abnormal to be a schoolteacher or a lawyer. Is it meaningful in any way to say that the most common profession is the only "normal" profession? Nobody thinks homosexuality is the most common way for human beings to be, because that's not what "normal" really means. "Normal" means something more like "not unusual," in both a literal (there are lots of homosexual individuals) and subjective (it is not wrong or strange to be homosexual) sense.

[SC803]

So if they aren't normal because they don't make up a big enough percentage of the world population, if a state you listed reaches 10-15% of the total population would they become "normal"?

[CurryThighs]

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure why you picked 10-15% specifically. If you're saying that there are 10 states (A-J) where A-I make up 8.9% each, and J is 11% then J is the normal, but if one day A surpassed J then A becomes the 'Normal' state, J becoming abnormal, then yes, you are correct.

[SC803]

Well by current estimates in the U.S. about 3.8% of the population self identifies as gay. As acceptance grows that percentage will grow too, I think if something could easily become normal just by growing to a certain point it's really not that different. Also gay people have been around for centuries, could that mean it's a normal state because it's been around for so long and not faded away?

[Teblefer]

[STA-CITE]>we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. [END-CITE]Why?

[MrMercurial]

Can you explain why we desperately need to stop acting as if not being Chinese is normal?

[cwenham]

Few people are engineers, but we don't consider engineers to be abnormal. Few cells in your body are cardiac muscle cells, but cardiac cells are not abnormal. Nature has a big problem to solve, probably something to do with constantly changing environments. Deserts that used to be shorelines, mountains that used to be plains. The systems that nature builds can't be constructed from identical clones. A 1/4" screw with a 3/8" diameter may be a rare component in your car, and therefore "abnormal" by your standard. But they may be crucial. Gays, autistics, introverts and others are all healthy. And at that, we're not even sure about diseases, either. The eukaryotes--an entire major branch of organisms--likely had a [viral origin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis). The genes that cause major hereditary diseases have a pesky habit of being beneficial in other combinations; Sickle-Cell: immunity to malaria, Tay-Sachs: immunity to tuberculosis, Cystic-Fibrosis: immunity to cholera. Nature isn't like a clock, but the barbs on an escapement wheel might consider the notches of another gear to be abnormal if they didn't understand everything else that makes a clock work. We're discovering what roles that recurring conditions in humans play in a huge and complex society. I don't know what roles autistics play, but there's dozens of theories of what roles homosexuals play--even if it's nothing more than the necessary side-effect of a radical allele.

[Mare1000]

If you call some people "normal" then you are calling the others "abnormal". And the word "abnormal" has a negative connotation. Dictionary definitions are one thing, but to my ear, the closest synonyms are: * normal = nothing's wrong with it * abnormal = something's wrong with it 55% of all people has brown eyes, but I wouldn't say that brown-eyed people are normal. If I say brown eyed people are normal then I'm saying that there's something wrong with blue eyed people. Sure, brown is the most common colour, but calling them "normal" implies that everyone should have brown eyes.

[CurryThighs]

Regardless of connotations or how people feel about words, abnormal does not mean negative. A word isn't there for everyone to pile on their own meaning to it. A word has a defined meaning. Otherwise we'd be in chaos

[Mare1000]

As a /u/[Deleted] has pointed out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/2c3toa/the_use_and_connotations_of_the_word_normal_and/): [STA-CITE]>Abnormal is another word that ought mean a practice, phenomenon or occurrence that is outside the normal range, as a term purely of description. Instead, it is almost entirely used in a pejorative, pathologising or negative sense. [END-CITE]If you tell me a word, it dosen't matter what its dictonary deffinition is. The only things that do matter are what you wanted to convey with that word and how I understood it. When you call something "normal" other people hear you saying "this is the way it should be". If "normal" really only meant "most common" then there would be no controversy and this thread wouldn't exist.

[Sadsharks]

Not true. Prescriptive linguistics have fallen out favour (if it was ever in favour, and many/most would say it wasn't) and English (and most other languages) is governed by descriptivism, not to mention that the study of linguistics itself is inherently descriptive. Countless words have already changed meaning, so if you want to avoid "chaos" it's too late. Unless you're telling me that you're using the prefix "cis" to describe the orientation of chemical molecules, which was its original meaning? And by "homosexual", you must mean "gay", as in "happy." While we're at it, autism was originally viewed as a type or symptom of schizophrenia. Is that what you mean, or are you referring to the new meaning of an entirely different condition?

[LaoTzusGymShoes]

[STA-CITE]> Prescriptive philosophy has fallen out favour [END-CITE]For the record, this is in the case of linguistics (which is itself part of anthropology, per my understanding), not all of philosophy.

[Sadsharks]

True. Now edited

[RustyRook]

[STA-CITE]> Anything that is in the majority is a 'Normal' state. So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. [END-CITE]No he isn't. China does not make up the *majority* of the word's population.

[Clockworkfrog]

You are looking at in on the wrong scale, across hundereds of animal species it is normal to find a small percentage of homosexual individuals, thus it is perfectly normal to find that a small pefcentage of humans are homosexual. Homosexual people do make up a small but significant percentage of humans, and when people say that it is not normal they do not mean it is not the norm, they mean it is not normative (as in the common and correct way of going about things). There are combinations of hair and eye colour that are less common then homosexuality, there is never any question of whether or not these are normal, normality only comes up when it is accompanied by a value judgement. Even if there were no distiction of normal vs normative then you are left having to find a demarcation for what percentage of a population does something have to be for it to be concidered normal or not, and unless you have that clearly defined point and do not move it around to suit your value judgments, then you have no basis for throwing normal or abnormal around.

[britainfan234]

A normal sexual orientation sure.... a normal human being? No. You arent a abnormal human being if you are gay. Your sexual orientation is abnormal.

[CurryThighs]

I never mentioned "Normal" human beings, only "Normal" states

[britainfan234]

[STA-CITE]> So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. [END-CITE]

[CurryThighs]

I used that as an example. I don't genuinely believe there to be a 100% normal human being and never claimed to

[britainfan234]

Hm. May I ask why you want this view changed? I mean, the people who are usually throwing around the terms normal and abnormal when it comes to gays usually refer to gays as not-normal. It sound's a lot better if you say their sexual orientation is not the norm of the majority of the population. You seem to have picked up on a technicality and are searching to defend these peoples choice of words when calling gays not normal? I mean really, agreeing that normal is the norm is not a view I would seek to be changed. Agreeing with homophobic peoples choice of words though I might. What I'm getting at is that while you maybe never would consider a gay person an abnormal human being others use it in that very way. Then again I could be very wrong about your motivation for wanting to have this view changed. So, what is your reason?

[CurryThighs]

I guess it might just be a poor choice of words on my part, but I often get argued with that I'm wrong and that autism is abnormal or homosexuality is abnormal. I don't have a problem with homosexuals or autists, but my point remains

[britainfan234]

[STA-CITE]>I often get argued with that I'm wrong and that autism is abnormal or homosexuality is abnormal. [END-CITE]Wait just a sec. Wrong about what? I thought your viewpoint was that they were abnormal states. Now you are telling me that people are telling you wrong for having the right opinion? You playing devil's advocate or something?

[CurryThighs]

What? I believe Autism and Homosexuality is abnormal. I am told I am wrong for this. I want to understand why this happens. I don't understand whats confusing?

[britainfan234]

[STA-CITE]>I often get argued with that I'm wrong and that autism is abnormal or homosexuality is abnormal. [END-CITE]This sentence is messed up man. It seems to imply people are arguing with you, telling you are wrong, and that autism is abnormal or homosecuality is abnormal. With a sentence that screwed up you cant blame me for being confused. [STA-CITE]>I am told I am wrong for this. [END-CITE]When you say 'abnormal' do you say it alone or with the word state after it? Seriously, nobody is going tell you are wrong if you say the majority of people aren't gay. You are purposely focusing on technicalities here instead of what people are actually arguing against. I swear, nobody will tell you autism and homosexuality is normal when normal is taken to mean the norm. If it's taken as synonymous with natural however people will rightfully object. You are trying to justify a normally homophobic statement by falling back on technicalities which have nothing to do with the context of the argument.

[CurryThighs]

I'm not being homophobic?

[[missing]]

[JohnnyReefe]

That would make you a minority and therefore abnormal.

[britainfan234]

Everybodys a minority in something, and if everyones abnormal then nobody is. You should not define a human being as abnormal based on 1 characteristic. It should be the majority of the characteristics of what makes us human that the fact whether we are normal or not should be based on.

[JohnnyReefe]

You are correct the point is moot.

[EpicZiggles]

I would say there's too many variables at play to designate one type of person as normal as then too many people are outliers. Take, for example, ethnicity. While the largest ethnicity group is Chinese, there are more non-Chinese as a whole, so how can an overall (in the scale of the global population) minority be considered 'normal'? Then, when you add in other factors, gender, handedness, hair colour, eye colour etc. There actually very few 'normal' people which pretty much defeats the purpose.

[CurryThighs]

I'm not arguing that there are 'Normal' people, I'm arguing that there are 'Normal' states. I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone that is 'Normal' in EVERY variable, as you said! We agree there! Also, you CMV'd me with the second paragraph. I hadn't thought of it that way. Here you go ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/EpicZiggles. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/EpicZiggles)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[JohnnyReefe]

Normality changes by country, state, town, etc. Being chinese is normal for the world but not for australia.

[EpicZiggles]

I would say when it comes to a normal human being it's a global thing. Anyhow, OP described normal human as being Chinese male.

[heyheyhey27]

What exactly would we need to prove to change a viewpoint like that? That most people are actually autistic, gay, and transgender? Because obviously those things *do* deviate from the norm; I don't think anybody would argue that they don't.

[CurryThighs]

I've seen a lot of people argue that such states are 'normal' and that a homosexual person is no different to a heterosexual person in any way, which is clearly incorrect.

[heyheyhey27]

I think you're getting confused in the semantics. Nobody is claiming that homosexuality literally isn't different from heterosexuality; they're arguing that the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality *isn't important*, and that it *is* normal in the sense that it's naturally-occurring. It's not like you have to undergo a complex invasive surgery to become gay, people are just born that way.

[CurryThighs]

I guess you're right, but some of the people I've met have been a bit more forthright in their words than that. Regardless, here's a delta ∆ [STA-CITE]> It's not like you have to undergo a complex invasive surgery to become gay. [END-CITE]I guess you've never heard of an anal probe /s

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/heyheyhey27. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/heyheyhey27)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[ghotionInABarrel]

[STA-CITE]>Anything that is in the majority is a 'Normal' state. So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. [END-CITE]The majority of humans are not Chinese. There is no nationality that the majority of humans can be described has. A plurality of humans are Chinese, but that is very different from a majority, especially in regards to defining a "normal". Also, there are more than 3 human traits. There are more human traits than we can realistically count, and each will have variations. The vast majority of traits have no "normal." For the traits in your post title, sexuality is abnormal in that a "normal" can be defined. And there are so many traits in existence, that no one will be "normal" in all of them. And when everyone is abnormal, doesn't that mean that abnormality is normal?

[CurryThighs]

I realise I skimped a little on my research with the Chinese bit. My point was that whatever the largest ethnicity is (I chose China because they have the largest population, but thats not an accurate representation of racial majority) is the 'Normal' ethnicity. I understand there are more than three traits, I was simply using those as examples. Again, my point is, whatever state is in the majority (Highest percentage) is the 'normal' state. Every trait will have a most commonly occurring state. [STA-CITE]>There are so many traits in existence, that no one will be "normal" in all of them. [END-CITE]I never said there would be someone like that. [STA-CITE]>And when everyone is abnormal, doesn't that mean that abnormality is normal? [END-CITE]"And when everyone's super, no one will be."

[Stokkolm]

The sexuality / autism argument is logical. The ethnicity / race would only make sense if the whole world was heavily inter-breeded. As it is now chinese parents make chinsese children and caucasian parents birth caucasian children. It would be absurd to brand as "normal" for black parents to breed asian children.

[Sadsharks]

[STA-CITE]>"And when everyone's super, no one will be." [END-CITE]Your argument is to repeat what he just said... but in the form of a movie quote? I don't get it.

[CurryThighs]

I wasn't arguing, I was making a joke. That part of his argument didn't seem to have point. It was rhetorical from where I'm standing

[ghotionInABarrel]

[STA-CITE]>whatever the largest ethnicity is is the 'Normal' ethnicity. [END-CITE]Number of Chinese people = 1.3e9 Number of people = 7.3e9 Percentage of people who are Chinese (the largest ethnicity I assume, but point still stands otherwise) = 18% Are you saying that only 18% of people have a normal ethnicity? Or to put it another way, that 82% (the vast majority) of people are abnormal on this one trait alone? [STA-CITE]> That part of his argument didn't seem to have point. It was rhetorical from where I'm standing [END-CITE]To clarify, when a state of abnormality is more common than normality, doesn't that contradict the definition of normality? So you're better off (and more accurate) saying that all variations of a trait are normal, at least within a certain range. So a human with sexual traits is normal, and so is a person with at least some asd conditions, eg aspergers, since defining everything other than the mode as abnormal eliminates the existence of a "normal".

[RustyRook]

[STA-CITE]> Again, my point is, whatever state is in the majority (Highest percentage) is the 'normal' state. Every trait will have a most commonly occurring state. [END-CITE]India's population is projected to be more than China's population in ten years. When that happens your "normal" will change. I think this shows perfectly that defining "normal" is just a tricky thing. It's easier, and more accurate, to talk in terms of majority/minority than normal/abnormal.

[CurryThighs]

I mentioned in another comment that 'Normal' can fluctuate. Otherwise, 'Normal' would still be a single-celled organism.

[RustyRook]

[STA-CITE]> Otherwise, 'Normal' would still be a single-celled organism. [END-CITE]Still not correct. "Normal" is a human construction, which has its benefits and drawbacks. People used to call slavery "normal" too, you know. I encourage you to see the many ways in which the word can be misused. It's often used to mock minorities or those who don't gel with society's expectations. What you're talking about is the [mode.](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Mode.html)