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”.
[…] 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.
By definition you can’t be normal if you’re neurodivergent…
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”.
No idea if you‘re trying to offend people but „not normal“ is a term used to exclude people from a social group. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/normal
The term used to distinguish from is „typical“.
From the very source you provided:
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.
just exchange the word neurodivergent with black or jewish and neurotypical with white or christian and you see the problem.
Provided you are “sane”.
“Just completely change your argument and it becomes problematic” is hardly convincing. In fact, you’ve committed a classic logical fallacy.