I have some terrible habits of getting annoyed at totally innocuous things. And one of the big ones that bugs me is when people exclaim, "There's no such thing as normal." Or, "What's a 'normal' person, anyway?" As though they've come up with something deep and profound. It's not really fair of me to be annoyed by it, because it honestly is a pretty profound piece of knowledge, and for the purposes of the context where it usually comes up, it's a better position than the alternative. I'm certainly not about to promote the status quo for the sake of consistency.
But I can't help but be irritated by the presumption so often carried with it that the idea of 'normalcy' is a nonsensical concept in every possible context. Even referring to human behavior, the idea of 'normalcy' has certain useful applications, though it's got plenty more opportunities for misuse. But apart from that, the idea of normal has extremely valuable applications in things like science and medicine. Acknowledging the existence of a baseline provides a filter to spot unusual circumstances.
Which, I suppose, is exactly the point these people are making. That it's not fair, and not legitimate, to use any abnormal behavior a person exhibits as a reason to single them out for special attention or scrutiny, especially by people in positions of authority.
It still bugs me, though.