 Metaphysical explanation is also relevant when considering the existence and nature of social kinds. According to Haslanger (2012), for example, being a woman amounts to occupying a certain (subordinate and hence oppressed) position in a social hierarchy. This type of view gives rise to Euthyphro-like queries of the kind: is x a woman because she occupies a certain position in an oppressive structure, or does she occupy this position because she is a woman? (see Ásta 2010). According to some philosophers involved in this debate, how you answer this question will decide if your account is realist (Barnes 2017) or deflationist (Díaz-León 2018). Haslanger herself has argued that the account is best understood as something in between. Against the “deflationists”, she is an extensionalist about meaning, from which it follows that it would make no sense to say that we have to sort out what the word means before determining its extension. Against the realists, Haslanger sometimes talks as if she rejects the idea that reality is hierarchically structured and holds instead that the natural world is neither explanatorily prior to nor ontologically more fundamental than the social world (pace, e.g., Schaffer 2017).