Social construct.

[The Grand Nudger]

Weeds aren't social constructs.  They're any wild plant growing in a cultivated space.  Pets, also, not social constructs.  We don't have to agree that dogs or cats or snakes or snails exist.  They exist without our agreement, just like a weed.

Things like race, gender, nationality.  These are social constructs.

What is a pet is subjective in the sense an animal can be a pet, food, or pest depending on what the people around it consider it to be.

A snails exist like humans exist but in terms of evolution there's no clear marker of when human became human and not the great ape humans previously evolved from.

There's not a perfect record of every single minute evolutionary change, we call ourselves human homosapiens because it works as a general description and we don't have to describe every hominid that ever existed.

If we did have a perfect record of every evolutionary change it would still be socially agreed upon labels placed on chosen points within the entire period of evolution.

Humans -are- great apes.  We never stopped being that (and we never will).  We're not homo sapiens, btw, we're homo sapiens sapiens.  "Doubly wise"...we like to call ourselves.  It remains the case that pets are genetically divergent from wild populations..and, yes, even with a fucking spider or a snail, a geneticist could show you the difference.  Pets are not subjective - the coyotes on my ridgeline are not my pets, even -if- some dipshit.... somewhere.... keeps coyotes. We're pretty interesting there, we do sometimes keep wild animals in cages - like tigers. End of.

-but get to the moneyshot for christs sake? What is the point of pretending that this very simple distinction is somehow incomprehensible? Would you prefer to argue over whether or not the tarantulas in americans glass boxes are genetically distinct from those in the wild (they are)..or does this get to something worthwhile..at some point?

-and there's no reason to believe that the difference between a cultivar and a wild organism is sociology.  

What...is....word?  The whole point of the concept of a social construct is to designate things which are not, in fact or in principle, derived from physics, chemistry, or biology.  Things which are not derived from any objective reality..whatsoever.  Social constructs are explicitly and exclusively relative, not objective..or subjective, things.

there is no reason to believe the difference between cultivar and wild organism is systematic and consistent, and not mere named on ad hoc basis in each case according to some a priori determination of which is the wild and which the domesticate.

I mean, other than the pronounced genetic, morphological, and behavioral differences, eh?

I like to argue over arcane things myself...but man..sometimes...... Look, lol, go grab yourself a red jungle fowl and try to start a business selling eggs. Get back to me on that. I'd love to see you succeed...but I know you wont...... Social constructs exist, and I've seen you very adroitly separate constructs from mere reality when you talk about american and international politics, for example. There is no biological fact, no law of physics, no principle of mathematics...that makes the us global hegemon. Just the (temporary) agreement of many people to that effect - now contested.