• ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    1)a) you missed the part where you clearly said “spectrum” before.

    maybe instead, you/we need to change how we react to parts of the spectrum. That is a) it isn’t “normal” and b) that’s okay.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Even though it’s a spectrum–in that it’s comprised of a number of different characteristics that are present to varying degrees–I think that perhaps some of those characteristics have been overly pathologized. I’m not sure exactly how to explain it. If I made up a disease–I’m going to call it Short-Man Syndrome (SMS)–and said that any male under 5’2" had SMS, then someone that was 5’2.1" wouldn’t fit the criteria. But wait!, he says, I feel short. So maybe that definition gets widened a little bit. So now a person that’s 5’2.5" says, well, I feel short too, and maybe a doctor disagrees, since 5’2.5" is pretty short, and that definition gets even wider. Eventually maybe someone that’s 5’11" is saying, well I feel short compared to Yao Ming…

      And maybe that’s what’s happening here. I don’t know. Even though all of these characteristics may exist on a continuum, you need to have a definite cut off point where you say, this point and beyond is pathological, and anything up to that, no matter how close, isn’t. Otherwise your definition becomes pointless.