Normal people aren't rare by definition.

What definition?

If you look at any one trait, you might be able to pick the "normal" variation of that trait by its frequency and yeah, in that case it would not be rare.

But when you combine traits, the probabilities multiply and that quickly reduces your probability of being "normal" with regard to all traits. For example, if two independent variable "normal" traits have a 2/3 probability, for example, the probability of being normal with regards to both traits is 4/9--already below 50%.

The definition of the word normal. The argument you're making here is merely playing with numbers, it has no intellectual merit. Normalness is not defined mathematically, and doesn't mean the intersection of an infinite number of arbitrarily selected traits. The meaning is clear to anyone who speaks plain English.

> The definition of the word normal.

I'm aware of how you're defining it, I just don't care.

Don't bother with whatever appeal to authority you're about to search for: I don't care what the dictionary says, either. Dictionaries describe how people use words, and sometimes the way people use words changes faster than the dictionary can keep up. People using words are the source of information in the dictionary, and viewing the dictionary as an authority on meaning is a fundamental misunderstanding of how dictionaries work.

> Normalness is not defined mathematically, and doesn't mean the intersection of an infinite number of arbitrarily selected traits.

Normalness is defined by the common understanding of the people who use the word to communicate. Usage determines definition, not the other way around.

If you understood what the person meant enough to know they're using a word in a way that you aren't used to, then communication occurred.

If you really want to fight about this particular dictionary definition not being mathematical, you should really look up the history of the word, because you're very wrong about that. But that's rather silly, because usage determines what the definition is, not the other way around.

> The meaning is clear to anyone who speaks plain English.

True! Which is why it's bizarre that you would insist on a different meaning when everyone, including you, understands what is being said.

Yes, and in the context of pasabagi's post he's using the word normal to mean non-queer/straight people, who are in fact not rare, they're the vast majority.

I was actually punning a bit on the word 'queer'. The point is, 'normal', as in straight, able-bodied, male, white, neurotypical, etc, is a minority - except in terms of representation, political or otherwise. This becomes a majority by creative coaltion building (white people, male people, neurotypical people, non-disabled, etc). You the turn around to the parts of the venn diagram that don't carry all of these treats, then treat them as a group who's concerns are marginal and not generally relevant.

the majority is straight , etherosexual and neurotypical globally

that's what everybody consider normal as in "it's the most typical and probable situation"

queer people are the 0.1% globally

This is just woke gibberish. Nobody defines normal as meaning specifically male, women are the majority of the population.

My guy, two posts ago you were telling me what pasabagi meant by "normal", and then when pasabagi themself comes to tell you what they meant by "normal", you're still fighting them on it?

If you just want to have an argument with someone, why don't you start an argument with someone who isn't trying to represent the underrepresented?

> Nobody defines normal as meaning specifically male, women are the majority of the population.

Not explicitly, but there are a lot of cases where female interests are treated as deviations from the norm.

I thought you said "normalness isn't defined mathematically". Which is it: do we define normal based on numbers (i.e. the majority) or not? Or does the defintion of normal just shift in whatever way is convenient for you to pretend your viewpoint is the majority viewpoint?

Eh, I honestly thought it was common sense. Everybody gets disabled at some point in their lives, yet we treat disabled people as a special edge case. Women's health problems don't get as much funding or attention, because they're also treated as a special case. 'Normal' is and always has been a political category, not a physical one.

The US military has something interesting to say about that: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...

This is a non-sequitur. Normal != average.

> People often say that you hamstring a project by putting queer stuff front and center, alienating 'normal people'.

I would say that it risks alienating people who are tired of finding politics injected into every corner of their life. And when you have to spell out carefully how inclusive you are, be sure you actually include everyone. That list gets pretty long.