Observation in the social sciences is based on a diverse library of perspectives. These perspectives are unique and separate but sometimes build off of one another. In an ideal world, the perfect social scientists would have an precise knowledge of all perspectives and be able to apply them unbiasedly across their research. Instead, social scientists often rely on a select few perspectives, often based on their own experiences. In the study of human-environment relations, there are a subset of perspectives. The association with gender and the environment is more broadly the culture/nature divide. Nightingale’s perspective on the differences in connections to the environment between genders are explained in a singular sense. This is done simply to introduce the idea to the reader. The author understands that in practice, a web of intersectionalities exist to create complex and unique circumstances. As social scientists, we should understand the same. The best social scientists are able to discern the perspectives and apply them precisely. By not putting too much weight on any single perspective yet also valuing the perspectives equally, you can recognize and piece together the puzzle that is each actor’s motivation. Gender and greater social and cultural institutions should not be an archetype to predict behavior but rather a motivator. Culture as an environment, in this case, dictates relationships between organisms. Gender is the defining characteristic of the human gender, and it is fluid, like climate, nature’s defining characteristic.