It’s also a perfect example of what in rhetoric is called the naturalistic fallacy. Presuming that those things that exist in nature are good or desirable can lead down some pretty strange paths.

To take patriarchy out of it for a moment, we often see the naturalistic fallacy rear its head in discussions of nutrition or recreational drugs.

A certain food is natural, therefore it must be good for you. Marijuana is natural, so it must not have any toxic effects. (not that I have anything against smoking weed in moderation, but it certainly has some toxic effects.)

All sorts of things occur in nature that are not beneficial to humans. Cobras and brown recluse spiders come to mind. Handled inappropriately, they can kill you. So can many species of mushrooms.

We humans are often at our best not when we bow to nature but when we work to transcend it.

Even if a strict dominance hierarchy were wired into us (which I don’t believe is the case) we could still transcend our biology.

Religion, philosophy, and spirituality often center around transcending our baser natures, after all. What are the teachings of Jesus but instructions to prioritize love and charity over quite natural, rationald impulses like fear of The Stranger?

Just another reason why these natural arguments carry little moral weight.