Hard-core science-of-sex researcher and professor Emily Nagoski says this about the (big!) difference between social science (which rocks) and stereotyping (which doesn't.)

[The] science [of] populations has no particular meaning for individuals. Like: On average, humans are 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian. Should I therefore think, “Phew, I’m 5’6″, but crap, I’ve got blue eyes and I’m this northern European mutt! There’s something wrong with me!” No.

Or should I think, “I’m not brown-eyed and I’m not east Asian, so therefore that’s BULLSHIT!” No. It’s not bullshit just because it’s not true about ME; it’s not TRYING to be true about me, it can only be true about the POPULATION.

No, the sentence, “On average, humans are 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian,” is both true and fair. FROM SPACE (according to the metaphor). At the largest scale.

What’s not true is, “Every individual human who ever existed was 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian.” At the human-level scale, that’s simply wrong.

And making a LAW that says, “People are 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian; to be anything else is against the law,” is both untrue and unjust – a.k.a., ACTUAL “bullshit.”

And I want everyone to be able to tell the difference between those things, between science, what’s true about you, and bullshit.

Source: Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd

Her bottom line on diversity and variation is, basically, that without variability the word "average" even a valid concept! For instance on average all human being have been dead for something like eighty five years! And if there weren't so many of us recently the average human would have been dead a heck of a lot longer than that. Thank goodness for variability, eh?