That's actually what the article points out. But I do think the language of normal vs abnormal obfuscates some of the intent. It's a 'deviation from healthy baseline' that they're talking about, and there are multiple such deviations in the grouped 'anomalies'.

From the article:

The language in particular should change given that “abnormalities” are ubiquitous—thus normal—and shouldn’t be described in terms that indicate a need for repair, like “tear.”