If you had to make one fact universally known, what would it be?

>Social science doesn't deal with the workings of language As it goes, there's actually lots of social science that does deal exactly with the workings of language. But that's irrelevant anyway as we're not talking about the workings of language. >'human construct' nonsense, but you don't actually know what you mean by this I'm quite clear what I mean by it. It's a pretty straightforward concept. >Yes, I have No you haven't. >category doesn't mean the phenomena describe suddenly fail to exist. Nobody is saying it does. The entire point is that the concept and the phenomena are not one and the same. >These categories simply describe things. This is an incredibly simplistic understanding of what categories do. They don't just describe things, they impose meaning on that which they describe. If you describe an animal as gay, you are imposing our social construct of sexuality onto the behaviours of an animal that exists outside of that social construct. You are giving those behaviours meaning that they do not inherently have. >You really, really do need to learn what the word 'arbitrary' means (Arbitrary)[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary]: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something. Seems pretty much the perfect word for my point. >And what *on earth* does it mean for there to be an 'inherent reason for a category to exist'? Meaningless gibberish Your inability to understand something doesn't make it meaningless gibberish. It's quite straightforward what that means. It means that the category exists because we have brought it into being, not because there's an intrinsic need for the category to exist. >The words might not, but all of the observable phenomena remain *exactly the same*. Sigh. For the Nth time, the category and the observable phenomena are not the same thing. Animals just have sex, they do not have sexualities. We can impose sexualities in them, but it's utterly nonsensical to do so, as they lack the conscious self awareness for the concept of sexuality to be meaningfully applied to them. >Explain why these few *are* or *are not* homosexual. The dichotomy you pose here perfectly encapsulates what you haven't grasped. They wouldn't be either. They wouldn't be 'homosexual', and nor would they be 'not homosexual'. They would exist entirely outside of that socially constructed binary. Look to the ancient Greeks for an example. They did not perceive sexuality the way we do. They conceived of it more in terms of being active or passive rather than gay or straight. So if you were to try and fit them into our modern concepts of 'straight' and 'gay', you'd be imposing our societal meaning on one where it makes no sense.