Well according to Webster normal is:
2b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally
So from those definitions woudn't a state or abnormality constitute a state of normality within the state of abnormality?
Couldn't we then agree to divide all such behaviours into classes of abnormality within which is contained a state of relative normality?
Therefore is it possible to say that x is an element of abnormality such that in each state of abnormality there exists a subset of normality.
Wouldn't this mean then that the concept of "abnormality" is not a description but rather one of many classifier headings under which substates of "normality" can exist.
Eg: Think of abnormality as a star in the galaxy. There are many stars which can contain solar systems of planetiods. There is a possibility that life could be evolving on similar such solar systems as ours. Normality is a presumed within the interactions of the life within the solar system, but once there is an attempt to contact life elsewhere it may appear that such life forms are not "normal" because they do not contain the same specifications.
Is my thinking abnormal?

but wait then that would mean it is really normal.