Home / Glossary / Abnormal
Abnormal
Also written: normal, abnormality
medical-context-carve-outevolving-usagenon-preferred-label
At a glance
Source-by-source
“avoid using such words to describe a person. Referring to someone who does not have a disability as a "normal person" implies that people with disabilities are deviant or strange. "Typical" can be a better choice. Be cautious when using the term "abnormal behavior." …”
The NCDJ accepts "abnormal"/"abnormality" for scientific phenomena such as abnormalities in brain function, but advises against using either word to describe a person. It singles out "normal person" for non-disabled people as implying that disabled people are deviant or strange, offering "typical" as a better choice, and asks writers to explain "abnormal behavior" in context.
“avoid using abnormal to describe a person. Avoid referring to someone who does not have a disability as a normal person as it implies that people with disabilities are deviant or strange. Typical is a better choice. Be cautious when using the term abnormal behavior. …”
The Diversity Style Guide's entry tracks the disability-stylebook consensus: "abnormal"/"abnormality" are acceptable for medical or scientific phenomena (an abnormal test result, abnormalities in brain function) but should not describe a person, and labeling a non-disabled person "normal" implies disabled people are deviant or strange. It offers "typical" instead.
“Normal … (use “normal” only in medical/scientific context such as “normal test result” or “normal growth”) … Non-disabled … Abnormal … Atypical”
The Movement Strategy Center's Terms-to-Avoid table pairs "Abnormal" with the suggested alternative "Atypical," and lists "Normal" among terms to avoid for people — restricting "normal" to medical or scientific contexts such as "normal test result" or "normal growth," with "Non-disabled" as the alternative for describing a person.
Audience notes
- Journalists and editors
- "Abnormal"/"abnormality" are fine in a strictly medical or scientific sense — "abnormal test result," "abnormal curvature of the spine," "abnormalities in brain function" — but not as a description of a person. Don't call a non-disabled person "normal"; "typical" or "non-disabled" is the preferred comparison (NCDJ, Diversity Style Guide).
- Advocacy and internal comms
- The Movement Strategy Center treats both "abnormal" and "normal" as terms to avoid when describing people, pairing them with "atypical" and "non-disabled." Watch for "abnormal behavior": NCDJ and the Diversity Style Guide flag it as carrying social-cultural judgment, so explain what you mean rather than letting the label stand.
- Anyone writing about a specific condition
- The carve-out is real but narrow. "Abnormal" describing a measurable phenomenon (a scan, a lab value, eye movements in Huntington's) is accepted usage; the line is crossed when the word is attached to the person rather than the finding.
Synthesis
The three sources agree closely: “abnormal” should not describe a
person. The NCDJ and the Diversity Style Guide both carve out a narrow exception
for medical and scientific phenomena — an “abnormal test result,” an “abnormal
curvature of the spine,” “abnormalities in brain function” — while drawing the same
line at the individual. Both also extend the rule to its mirror image: calling a
non-disabled person “normal” implies that people with disabilities are deviant or
strange, so “typical” (NCDJ, DSG) or “non-disabled” (Movement Strategy Center) is the
preferred comparison. NCDJ and the DSG both treat “abnormal behavior” as a phrase that
carries social-cultural judgment and needs to be explained rather than asserted.
The Movement Strategy Center reaches the same place through a different
format. Its Terms-to-Avoid table pairs “Abnormal” with the alternative “Atypical” and
lists “Normal” among the words to avoid for people, with the instruction to
reserve “normal” for medical or scientific contexts such as “normal test result” or
“normal growth.” The page’s coverage decision — folding “normal” into the
“abnormal” entry — reflects how the sources treat the pair: the two words
travel together, acceptable for findings and off-limits for people.
A sourcing note: the Diversity Style Guide’s entry follows the NCDJ’s almost
sentence for sentence (the DSG aggregates specialist disability stylebooks, and the
NCDJ’s Disability Language Style Guide is the disability anchor it draws on), so the two
converge by design rather than independently. The Movement Strategy Center is the
page’s independent source, reaching the same recommendation from an equity-glossary
rather than a journalism-stylebook tradition. Across 2021–2024 the treatment did not shift —
only the framing did, from the journalism guides’ “acceptable in a medical context,
avoid for a person” to the equity glossary’s flat avoid-with-an-alternative table.
Audience notes
See the structured audience notes above: journalists can keep “abnormal” for genuinely
medical or scientific findings but should reach for “typical” or “non-disabled” when
comparing people; advocacy communicators following the Movement Strategy Center should
treat both “abnormal” and “normal” as person-describing words to avoid; and anyone
writing about a specific condition should attach the word to the finding, never the
person.
Related terms