I would like to know if the right to decide what is 'normal' and 'abnormal' belongs to any particular authority or type of expert. Whose job is it to define what is 'normal' and 'abnormal'? Is it the job of philosophers, or sociologists or another authority? Or a combination of these disciplines? Or is it not up to any type of authority and is instead up to everyday people with no particular expertise?
Example: French historian and philosopher of history, Amaury de Riencourt claimed in one of his books that "Far from being an incomplete form of maleness...femaleness is the norm, the fundamental form of life." This statement implies that to be male is to be abnormal. Is he right because of his credentials? Are there counterarguments to this statement? If I disagreed with this statement, would I be wrong becuase I have no credentials to my name?
We are all fallible. Even experts. Especially about matters as value-laden as questions of "normality" of types of human beings. If you disagree with Amaury de Riencourt, and give reasons for your disagreement, then the fact that you have no credentials would not matter. Your reasons should be evaluated on their own terms. This particular claim about gender and normality is difficult to agree or disagree with because it is so vague. You think the statement implies that to be male is to be "abnormal"; but it may only mean that to be male is to be a variant (non-standard form). (I don't know the work of Amaury de Riencourt, so I do not know what is meant, and whether it is a biological, sociological, political etc claim.)