Statistically, "normal" is the distribution of a Bell curve.
It has no moral component. A Bell curve that had the tails (extreme ends) truncated would be quite abnormal.
Most people define themselves as being normal. They want very badly to be in that fat part of the curve because that's where everyone else is. They want to belong. The subjective view of normal is the fat part of the Nell curve -
with the person putting themself somewhere near the middle - and then projecting a moral judgment onto those who are not within the fat part for being different. By judging someone "not virtuous," they get to feel "virtuous" in comparison.
I'm not a big fan of that POV.
The way I look at normal is
what you'd expect to happen if you knew all the prior conditions. Your life, genetics, epigenetics, experiences, environment, and the conclusions you've reached are all unique. If one could know all of these things, then one would know what is
normal for you.
Everyone has a different normal, and despite outside pressure, they tend to return to it. Very much like a string on a guitar. It has a place it "wants" to be, a place of minimum energy. You can pull on it and move it to another position, but it always resists and will return to normal after it is released.
Staying in a place that is NOT normal for you requires energy, and you'll always tend to return to where you are most comfortable. And that is why masking and other forms of denying your nature are so stressful. There's a cost/benefit analysis to be done before denying a fundamental part of your personality, and sometimes it isn't worth it. It is often better to find other people who share your idiosyncracies - or find "acceptable" ways to share them with ordinary people - than it is to fight them.
