I have more respect for person who admit having prejudices than people who claim perfection that turn out to be hypocrites later.
Yet people tend to be quite selective about what they attribute to nature. Coincidentally (or conveniently), the behaviors and qualities they think are “natural” tend to be the ones they possess.
Grandma will say that it’s natural for women to want to have babies and be the happy homemaker. But does Grandma ever say it’s natural for men to cheat on their wives? No. That might be what Grandpa says, but never Grandma.
I’ve never heard someone say criminality and law-breaking are “natural”. Yet most of us have broken at least one law at least once in our lives. I take this to mean that we tend to say things are “natural” when we are excusing them or downplaying their badness. “It’s natural to drive twenty miles over the speed limit!” communicates something totally different from “It’s common to drive twenty miles over the speed limit!”
As others have pointed out, I don’t mind the statement itself so long as the person saying it understands we have this thing called a frontal lobe capable of overriding our baser instincts.
I like “tendency” better than natural. When discussing human nature, I will say “I think there can be a tendency to” or “a tendency towards” something. It sounds less universal, less absolute, and, as mentioned by Roderick Femm, it doesn’t carry the implication that there is a moral weight to the tendency.
And while I do understand that we can’t ever know what is inherent vs cultural, human nature is still really, really interesting to talk about, read about, write about. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pondering the human condition.
I think it only natural to seek out others whom most resemble ourselves. Its like when kids first encounter a person of another race or when say a person from say China first encounters a person who has black skin or a caucasian with blond or red hair.
It’s Kate so I couldn’t resist and downloaded the sound bite. It says:
"Nature Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."
QS: Clicking on things on the Interwebs so you don’t have to. 
This.
And that.
The question as it is stated in the title gets no reaction from me. It depends on the context and intent of the speaker.
Yes, it bothers me. I notice it most when people generalize about women and I don’t hesitate to call people on it. I call people on making generalizations about men too.
Bwuh? We have tons of quick and easy ways to express the nuances.
“It’s typical for people to want to have children.”
“People usually are uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs (if they’re not used to it).”
“The vast majority of people…”
“Seem” is a great word to modify/soften any generalization. Even “it seems to be natural” is much better.
Is there some kind of training required? I’m not being snarky here. It’s a serious question.
I don’t know anybody in a wheelchair, but I can’t say any encounters I’ve had have been awkward. If there’s something I need to know other than really obvious stuff like “if you’re suggesting someplace to meet, be mindful of accessibility issues,” or “they may need more room to get by you,” please tell me. If I had a coworker or something in a wheelchair, I’d expect them to let me know if they needed something.
In dealing with people in wheelchairs or who have other obvious physical disabilities, as much as I try I never can get around their most obvious trait and I have trouble NOT discussing the issue.
Am I wrong? In any conversation you look for things to talk about. for example, if a guy was wearing a hockey shirt I know we could talk hockey.
On a couple of occasions I just at there and was quiet so I would not say the wrong thing.
It’s really due to common behaviors combined with words that have somewhat misleading connotations.
For example, if someone says that it’s “natural” for someone to be uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs, disfigured people or people from other ethnic groups, it’s technically true, in that just about everyone is uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, and unless you work or live with people in wheelchairs, disfigured people or people of other ethnic groups, they’re going to be unfamiliar.
Using the thought that it’s “natural” to be a justification for bad behavior is something else though. It doesn’t justify hatred, discrimination or anything like that.
That last part is where I think the OP’s going- it’s using it as a justification that’s not right, not the simple idea that people can be easily put outside their comfort zone by something out of the ordinary (to them).
Some of it is simple discomfort on the part of the listener when they don’t like to admit that they’re out of the ordinary. For example, saying that it’s natural for people to marry and want to have children isn’t really a value statement- humans are monogamous, generally speaking, and the drive to reproduce is pretty much a universal thing among all animals. As a result, I think people who get their panties in a wad about it are probably reflecting their own feelings about their own relationship to the normal behavior.
Green Bean, the generalizations about the sexes bother me too, although I’m sure I’m guilty of making them sometimes. But I think the discomfort comes from the fact I always seem to defy generalizations and it sucks always being the exception. “Women are naturally nurturing and sensitive.” Well, if a woman isn’t especially nurturing and sensitive, is she “unnatural”? And is it rude for a woman who isn’t nurturing or sensitive to let the speaker know why their wording is inartful?
Maybe if I felt more “typical” it wouldn’t be that bothersome to me.
I personally don’t have a problem with being different or making fun of my “weirdness”.
But there’s a difference in me pointing it out and others doing so, either explicitly or implicitly. If I’m not criticizing your choices or making any other value judgment against you, there’s no need to be self-righteous. And that’s what “It’s natural!” broadcasts to me.
That’s exactly what I’m saying- the feeling of discomfort with the unfamiliar is natural, but using it to justify mistreating others or merely making them uncomfortable isn’t natural- it’s just assholery.
The term “natural” should only be used when describing common human traits and behavior with a biological/evolutionary basis. When discussing common cultural/political traits, there are better terms to use.
Even when using the term “natural” properly, there will be outliers, since not everyone is the same. Attaching a morality to those outliers is a common fallacy.
No, being inherent to the human psyche doesn’t make us act in prejudiced ways; it just predisposes us to act in those ways. And knowing that we have this predisposition can help us to avoid acting on it.
(In a way, that’s the idea behind the scientific method: we know that we humans have a predisposition to seeing what we want to see, seeing things that aren’t there, etc., so the scientific method is a way we’ve developed to not be victimized by those predispositions.)
But that’s a non-sequitur (or an instance of the is-ought fallacy mentioned earlier).
Perhaps the best response is to say, “Nature, red in tooth and claw…”
Because that’s how it should be thought of. There’s plenty of stuff that appears to be natural behavior for humans, given its existence in every single population of humans we’ve found. That doesn’t mean things like xenophobia, rape, and murder are good; it just means that they’re part of our monkey brains. We’re humans, fercryinoutloud; ACT like it! Don’t make excuses for poor behavior just because that poor behavior is as natural as a wasp laying eggs in a living caterpillar.
It doesn’t bother me at all if someone makes an “it’s natural” claim, unless the claim is obviously wrong. What really bothers me is when someone conflates “it’s natural” with “it’s acceptable” or even “it should be expected.”
There are plenty of words that will convey this exact meaning without some of the other connotations “natural” possesses. In my experience are a couple of basic reasons people use “natural” instead of those other words: they’re just being sloppy with language (happens to all of us at times); they believe their own habits are the best and are actually preferred by nature; and they just don’t know that there are other ways of doing things. The second one is the worst, really. Speaking of ‘natural,’ if you look back at history you will see that societies often fall in to the habit of assuming that whatever they do is preferred by nature. You can see plenty of people who’ve tried to use the latest scientific developments to confirm popular prejudices. This is just one of the things our brains do and it always turns out to be wrong. I hope we’re a little more aware of it these days.
Yup! And it often has nothing at all to do with nature. It’s very annoying when people use “natural” to mean “moral” or “best.” Nature doesn’t give a shit.
Exactly! See - there are plenty of suitable words. 
Everything humans do is natural, unless you’re talking about supernatural activity. So it’s a pretty meaningless thing to say. I don’t think it’s wrong to espousing an ideological belief or rationalization when there’s an appeal to nature has been made.
“It’s natural for men to provide, while women stay home with the kids”.
“Cyanide is natural too. And?”