"Natural" is just a social construct.

I will of course offer my arguments in this round, but first would like to briefly comment on Pros opening. In short, the reason why these arguments do not work is that they require us to draw on a theory of meaning, language and referencing that is itself inconsistent with constructionism. Substantive conclusions derived from constructionist premises require a reference theory (descriptivism) that implies at least the potential for (if not outright) realism w. r. t. the natural order, and a strong coupling between linguistic descriptions and the real properties of the entities. In order to attack the concepts integrated or differentiated from reality which form part of what we consider the natural order, one must first use those concepts, thereby committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. For example if the Social Constructionist argues that property is a social construct and that therefore "all property is theft", they must use faulty reasoning to get there. In turn I argue that specific evidence demonstrates that what humans regard as Natural, in at least some cases, is truly Natural because it is based on a natural order and the concomitant facts about reality, ie that Natural is NOT just a social construct. It is generally accepted that amongst the human natural order there are 2 genders: males and females (an ostensibly bi-modal distribution with few exceptions (eg intersex conditions (caused by chemical and embryonic development issues))). Social constructionists argue that this is false and that there are more than 2 genders (varying independently of sex), and that men and women are essentially the same (ie men and women are socially constructed). It has been shown that whilst all foetus' start in the womb as a female prototype, the introduction of pre-natal testosterone alters the structures of the brain and sex organs to a male pattern type. Scientists generally study four primary areas of difference in male and female brains: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity. The differences between male and female brains in these areas show up all over the world. The altered brain structures switches the male pattern to a preference towards non-emotive thinking and expression rather than emotive, object rather than people orientation, high single task focus rather than multi-tasking. These are facts about ourselves creating an emergent natural order. Individual preferences for women, mean that from a societal perspective, women tend not to specialise in high focus, analytical, object oriented studies or jobs (STEM fields such as software engineering). Whilst Men do. However, vice-versa women dominate in humanities, arts and the caring professions. This is an expected Natural result of natural order from facts about reality and ourselves. Social constructionists are forced to deny any such link, instead blaming some invisible forces (without evidence) that implicitly or explicitly prevent equal participation in Academia or the job market. However, when we put this to empirical studies and look at societies where most environmental factors (creating differences between the sexes) have been eliminated (such as in Scandanavia), we find that the biological differences maximise (get worse from the constructionists perspective). In other words left freely to choose men and women (in a population) follow different aspirations (are different) and this is expected because of the natural order. Therefore the claims of social construction are false, at least in this one example. It seems to me that Pro is arguing a different topic and not the one presented in his title or opening: - His first argument w. r. t. to the word "Blue" and its use in Blueberries is an argument that: "Words" are just a social construct. Not that Natural is just a social construct. - His second argument is an equivocation fallacy on the word "Natural" as he uses in a colloquial sense. Humans use the word Natural in several different contexts (as the word "Light" is used differently either in the context of weight or colour). Pros opening clearly states his purpose is to demonstrate that the term "Natural" applies to the "natural order", not in a colloquial usage of the term, applying to say GM foods. His argument therefore makes as much sense as saying 1) Dark is not light, 2) All feathers are light, 3) Therefore, there are no dark feathers. Another failure in his opening to this debate topic is that his topic asserts that what we consider to be "Natural" (as a consequence of the natural order defined in R1), is in no way a result of any part of the natural order (ie that it is JUST a social construct). Even if he did stay on topic and did not equivocate, he has a big BoP. Merely citing a few examples would not prove his thesis. Whereas I can just cite an example to defeat the thesis (see above). Lastly I will turn my attention to the Randian view Metaphysics/Epistemology. Pro claims to be an adherent (strong or weak, not sure? ) of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I find it odd that anyone claiming to be in this camp would have any sympathy with Social Constructionism. Such the I am aware of the Randian view, she was explicitly a Realist in terms of metaphysics given the Axioms of Existence, Consciousness and Identity. This immediately would block any highly skeptical approach to Reality and Nature. Furthermore her Theory of Concepts (the centerpiece of her epistemology) would require that concepts forged and formed from reality, referenced reality itself (ie precepts becoming concepts through a precise reasoning strategy). All this is exactly contrary to social constructionism. Social constructionism is indeed a quasi-Marxist philosophy based on Post-Modernist views of society. Hacking has commented that, "the label 'social constructionism' is more code than description of every Leftist, Marxist, Freudian, and Feminist Post-Modernist to call into question every moral, sex, gender, power, and deviant claim as just another essentialist claim including the claim that members of the male and female sex are inherently different, rather than historically and socially constructed. " Whilst Rand turned most of her ire towards Kantian (and Platonic) traditions, somewhat unfairly in the case of Kant, she would have been implacably opposed to Post-Modernism and Social Constructionism especially w. r. t the natural order.