Normal or Typical which best describes

 

Subject: Normal or Typical, which best describes.

Should the word ‘normal’ be discontinued and the word ‘typical’ take its place.

As we uncover an ever wider understanding of the world around us, particularly the diversity of the people in it we begin to question, 'is anything normal'. If we judge things in terms of numbers or percentages and give less prominence to the smaller groups of people who exhibit recognisable  differences to the majority, do we class them as abnormal and what of their norm. A child with Downs Syndrome or a Transgender person, do they represent people, of course they do, are they different, yes, can we understand their differences, I hope so.

The word normal, which covers such a huge field has maybe seen its day and we should stop using it. The word “typical” is far less corrosive since it’s not an objective statement and It doesn’t preclude us from having opinions about the use or misuse of a statement of fact. Neither group, and there are many, should hold it against another group as long as all groups are equally respected.  Unfortunately there are daily clarion calls demanding exceptions or special pleading which invariably means there is a cost and one side or the other will be described as a loser.

The norm or the typical (the majority) must not be bullied by the minority unless it can be proved beyond doubt that the majority prejudice is directed at one group and without cause. Prejudice often flows two ways and makes us individually blind to a wider reality. For instance the statement that women are always overlooked in terms of promotion. Or young black men attract too much attention from the police. Transgender people muddy the water when it comes to female privacy and have an inbuilt advantage when it comes to winning medals in sport. All these issues have pros and cons attached and we must never shrink from debating them even if some sensitivities are breached. If typically we use our own circumstance or situation to base our preferences we do so without any predisposed acrimony unless we are told that our views are phobic. Our lives are bound up in judgement, judgements which are formed by our particular experience. If we are asked continually to re-tweak our preferences it leaves the person not directly effected by the world of 'on going accommodation', it leaves them in a maze of of conflicting emotions of what is right and what is wrong. Religion used to give guide lines but this was deemed corrosive and exploitative for a person who found themselves non-typical. Is our experience to be bound on here-say, on the experience of a few who we accept as brothers and sisters in a complex world of genetic variance or do we fall back on the fundamentalism which has guided us for generations.