 As should be evident, Parsons’ structuralist position, like Resnik’s, is less realist than Shapiro’s.  Moreover, he is explicit that adopting a “structuralist view of mathematical objects” should be seen as separable from, and orthogonal to, the realism/nominalism dichotomy. Consequently, for Parsons one can be a non-eliminative structuralist without being a realist in any strong sense; his own position is a case in point.  Yet Parsons’ version of structuralism is still meant to allow taking mathematical statements at face value (as characterized above), so that it remains realist in this minimal semantic sense.