McLemore's claim, "the so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against", is false. Moreover, the fact that no such thing as a statistically default human exists (which has been known since at least the '40s – see https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...) has nothing to do with the normal distribution as such. The default human body fails to exist despite the normal distribution of many of the measures that can be made of a human body. The paper McLemore linked, of which I have read as much as I can endure, does not, to its credit, make any such claim about the normal distribution or any other distribution. McLemore, in her article but not in her paper, is simply using amphiboly to confuse the different meanings of 'normal' as part of the phrase "normal distribution" and as a synonym for 'default' sensu 'basis of comparision'. This makes no sense – hence, "nonsense".

And she doesn't even use that confusion to make any sensible point. The rest of that paragraph is just a rehash of the paper's argument. I don't "understand" why McLemore inserted this guff about normal distributions, but if I had to guess, she might have done it to strengthen the link between what Wilson wrote about and what the paper is criticising – not by reasoning, but by wordplay.