If it’s something that exists amorally in the animal kingdom but which humans have identified as a moral evil for us, it makes sense to me to say it’s a human social construct. That doesn’t diminish it.
It does actually diminish it as it:
Commits to the naturalist fallacy
Makes the concession that somehow it's 'a moral evil for us, which we have identified' which leads into;
Acceptance of morality as ultimately subjective which then leads into;
Observable negative outcomes/harms are matters of opinion which then leads into;
That which is observed, and can have opinions formed of it, is subjective that ultimately distills further to;
Any aspect of society that comes from human thought is up for debate and/or is a product of culture.
The golden median fallacy is for children and objective morality exists. It does not mean that objective morality exists in equivalence, and it is a topic that requires nuance and genuine understanding making it unfit for handling by mentally malformed ideologues who take positions based on persuasion rather than correctness.
Rape is not a social construct, end of discussion. I am not and never will be on 'the same side' as someone, on this, who is promulgating insanity as reason.
something is not a matter of opinion merely because people can disagree, agree, name, and define it.
There are people who have believed varying creation myths, does that mean that the Big Bang is a social construct? Varying peoples have had differing cosmologies, does that make heliocentrism a social construct?
It's worth reiterating because A: people here don't fucking read and B: because it's the cornerstone of these arguments being broken into pieces.
At the bottom of the glass of subjective morality is the concept of a solipsistic reality in which we as humans can dictate terms to reality itself. QED gender is not a social construct for the same
exact fucking reasons.
