I have a vague sense of what these terms might refer to, but why don't you tell me what they are positions on?

If you referencing biology, I'd count myself as more of a foundationalist or essentialist than a constructivist. For instance, I don't think sex roles, or many gender roles, are socially constructed. I rate biology over culture here. But if you are talking about whether women should serve in the armed services or not, clearly that is culture. I say put the women out front on the firing line.

I've always preferred the essentialist approach for gay sexuality. Certain details of gay life are going to be culturally determined -- like, whether the clone look of 1972 would consist of plaid shirts, mustaches, and blue jeans, or something else--maybe green hair, black leather shirts, and kilts. But the basic homosexual orientation seems entirely biological.ººº Straight sexuality is also biologically determined.

My sister (73 yrs old) was annoyed that "the men" who lived in her apartment building had not shoveled the walk after the last snow storm. I suggested that the women in the building were just as capable of shoveling the snow as the men, which made her incensed. I'm 70 and I'm still shoveling...so... here's the shovel, bitch, dig in.

ºººThat doesn't mean that straight men can't do dead-on imitations of gay men at their campiest, or visa versa.

Are you asking about epistemology? I'm not sure. I like the pragmatism of Dewey when it comes to epistemology (not to be confused with that of Rorty, who I think misunderstood Dewey. Regardless, I don't like "constructivism" as it seems to me to that it proposes that we "create" something when we interact with our environment. We can create many things, but we don't create merely by existing, and thereby seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. We simply live as a human being does. We no more create reality than does any other creature. We live, interact, as parts of the world.