(no subject)

[naath]

A thing I am interested in (but not, I think, very good at actually DOING ANYTHING ABOUT; I suck) is in expanding what counts as "normal" in social terms.

A lot of the opposition to ideas of expanding "normal" seem to fret that what I want is to *change* "normal" to be me, not them, and to exclude them. But I don't really want that at all - I want a bigger "normal", not a me-shaped "normal" (if everyone were just like me the world would be a boring place).

I guess expanding "normal" makes it harder for people who conform to the current normal to find like-minded people; because with the narrow normal they get to assume that everyone is "just like me" and that people who aren't will be polite about correcting them (or just let it slide). Whereas in a world where more choices are normal you have to spend more time on working out what option a person has chosen rather than just assuming they are "like me".

I'm not sure how to make it easier for people who are current "normal" to adapt to a new, wider normality that includes them but also many other people.

Comments

[naath.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think people are pretty flexible *in person*; but a bit less so when they don't have a personal experience to fall back on. Of course as more people are more "out" about more things then more people have those personal experiences.

I also want people to be aware that lots of things are possible; so they can go "oh, you can do THAT, I've always wanted THAT but not known how..."

I think the internet really helps with this stuff too. So much variation on display.