Any normative proposition of the form that “people should/shouldn’t do this or that thing because it is/isn’t natural” is shot through with logical holes from the outset.

Humans are actors on themselves and self-modification individually and culturally is one of the defining hallmarks of humanity.

Note that I still believe and evidence shows that humans are not as disconnected from the natural world and instinctive or near-instinctive reactions as most people would like to believe, but I’m discussing post-hoc justifications of what is most likely latent personality tendencies here.

It’s “natural” to have nuclear families?

Eh, so what. What does that mean? It’s natural to stab someone in the eye with a stick, too.

It’s not natural for women (or men) to shave their pubic hair?

Eh, so what. Earrings aren’t natural. Any hair cutting isn’t natural. Surgery isn’t natural. Clothes aren’t natural. This is a terrible argument.

Though I’m aware that it’s not really what G. E. Moore meant by the phrase “naturalistic fallacy,” I will term it that for this brief discussion.

This redefinition of More’s naturalistic fallacy to suit my own purposes then is just to demonstrate that any argument (for humans at least, and especially about culture) is doomed from the start and demonstrates more about the speaker’s personality, preferences and biases then it elucidates anything about nature, correct behavior or what is actually natural.