The fact that your assessment doesn't stand up to is that "normal man" seems misplaced. The average person I know cannot figure out how to install Linux much less troubleshoot issues along the way. I don't think this makes them imbeciles or anything of the like. Even GNOMEs definition of a normal person is probably off kilter because the bar for their basic user is so high.
I think that, whatever definition of "normal" GP was using, it's automatically excluding anywhere from 45% to 95%+ of the population.
And by selecting upon adults, the numbers are already driven up. The young tend to be more skilled with new technology than the old.
While young adults might be better able to e.g. use Gmail, I'd be willing to bet most of them can't configure and recompile DWM, modify the gtk3 settings.ini by hand, or make changes to their xorg.conf.
There used to be Linux distributions that installed to one's C: drive and booted as a windows launch option; I haven't heard of that being a thing in years.
My problem with GNOME developers is that they consistently deny that they cater to the least technically savvy base and use euphemisms such as “normal people”. They are not “normal” they are technically far less literate than the normal man, and they too of course should be able to own and operate a computer.
GNOME in fact seems to think it's own users to be even less savvy than I do, but they continue to deny this.
The other problem is that everything that Red Hat has it's tendrils in overflows with meaningless marketing language such as that, in general.