There are a few reasons why I specifically have an aversion to the word "normalize" but nothing is worse than the context in which the word is usually used.
It's a word that's usually sending a bad message at best and a hypocritical message at worst.
I'm willing to bet that literally none of you have ever loved a person because he or she was normal. "Normalize" can easily be interpreted to mean "to make it not interesting." To an extent, that can be valuable. I think that Sam Harris generally was right to yearn for a world in which skin color is as uninteresting as eye or hair color. Still, wouldn't it be more desirable to love people for qualities that are different and interesting rather than making characteristics less interesting?
Last I checked, the "Q" in LGBTQ stands for "queer." Queer is an antonym for normal. If you're queer, you're not normal. When people say "normalize" they're implying that, in order to love and accept somebody, that person has to be made normal or that person's identity must be made normal or uninteresting.
Do we have Pride Month to celebrate people being normal? There's an added layer to this in which, by simple biological fact, being gay or lesbian can't be normal if the species wants to stay on the planet. That of course doesn't and shouldn't mean that we should be hateful and discriminatory toward anyone; but, that's the problem with the word - it implies that we have to make certain things normal in order to be accepting.
How do you preach "diversity" while using the word "normalize"? These are contradictory concepts.