• Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    By definition you can’t be normal if you’re neurodivergent…

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      By the “divergent” part of the word, you’re right.

      It would be like saying “it’s normal to be abnormal”. While it’s true that not everybody is identical, and everyone has their quirks, by defintion “abnormal” is not “normal”.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        From the very source you provided:

        […] by Late Latin normālis had also come to mean “according to a rule”, from which modern English senses of the word derive: in the 1800s, as people began to quantitatively study things like height and weight and blood pressure, the usual or most common values came to be referred to as “normal”, and by extension values regarded as healthy or desirable came to be called “normal” regardless of their usuality.

        I don’t think anyone of sane mind would argue against the notion that it’s more desirable, and by definition healthier, to be born neurotypical than neurodivergent.

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          just exchange the word neurodivergent with black or jewish and neurotypical with white or christian and you see the problem.

          Provided you are “sane”.

          • Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            “Just completely change your argument and it becomes problematic” is hardly convincing. In fact, you’ve committed a classic logical fallacy.