Would you share with everyone in public if you have a third or fourth nipple? 
It's not warm enough for that at this time of year.
All it says was the way it works normally. I agree that certain things can not be standardized, like an exam you take for a course at college for example. It's true that if you get a B rather than an A might not make you look as good of a student but it doesn't mean you're more stupid than "A" students.
(this is really more in response to Descenterace than you, WF

)
Albeit it's always worth remembering there is still a basic archetype for human physiology and psychology.
The problem is, I think, how people react to abnormality and in particular where they treat it as uniformly negative. Autism is a bad thing in the context of normal human interaction and social behaviour/experiences, but even in that context it still doesn't stop people being human. We can say autism is a negative thing in the scope of the world-at-large, and i think that's fair. But saying people are inferior, any less human, or any less capable of being happy by a physical characteristic (i.e. brain differences) is IMO unfair, and it's the tendency for some people to do exactly that which makes people offended by the concept of defining 'normality' for a person.
If we don't work on a concept of basic, biologicall normality, though, we almost veer into the territory where certain problems or illnesses can become easier to dismiss as 'just different' rather than to examine and treat. I don't think it's encouraging, to coin a messy phrase, conformity if we treat autism or dyslexia, because the benefit of treatment I think can be proven by examining humanity in general and how these things (not illness...um, I forget the exact term; syndrome?) impact upon the persons ability to function in that world.