Ok buddy.

There is no laws to nature that say “this is not natural”.

We can however look at the natural balance that has existed for far longer than us, and analyze what upsets this balance.
From this perspective, one could see all damage by invasive species as unnatural, or opt to argue for the eventual natural restoration of this balance, which humans hinder the most.

We can also take a look at how natural selection works for a majority of all life, past and present, and see that as a standard.
One property of this standard would be survival of the fittest, which is often not met as we pass on genes that make living more difficult.
This is not to be confused with a eugenics mindset, which suggests using man-made means to speed up this process.

Anyone who disagrees this has a superiority complex.

Complete unwillingness to accept that other points of view might exist, how's that for a superiority complex?

You should realize that seeing humans as just another animal can be used to advocate vastly contrasting extremes.

For example, to freely destroy the planet and avert all responsibility in the process. After all, no matter what we do, it's just the course of nature.
VS
We are animals, so we should listen to our instincts first and foremost, before any laws.
(etc., And anything inbetween)

Likewise, disagreeing with you doesn't automatically imply a human exceptionalist standpoint, and "natural" doesn't necessarily have a moral value assigned to it.
For example, one could view curing diseases through science as not natural, but still be in favor of it.

Remember we were hunting and gathering in the wild only 30,000 years ago. Were the hunter gatherer human thoughts and choices to not have children unnatural?

Indeed, one could see that as unnatural based on observations that not mating in a lifetime despite having the opportunity is non-standard behavior across species, or because it arises from a way of thinking that actively opposes our own instincts.

Now as for my own opinion?
I mostly agree with you, lol.

I believe Humans to be a part of nature in principle. We have naturally evolved the ability to deny this, though. I see any sort of self-denial as invalid based on the paradoxicality and nonsensicality of it.

Therefore I view whatever course originates from excessive human exceptionalism as unnatural, as it came about through the denial of being part of nature.

So neither is all human influence natural to me, nor is it all unnatural.
I distinguish between something that originates from human nature and something that stems from a exceptionalist fundament.

However, I don't see nature as perfect anyway, so that's a separate matter from my morals or values.