>>In these works, Butler sets out to challenge “essentialist” understandings of gender: in other words, assumptions that masculinity and femininity are naturally or biologically given, that masculinity should be performed by male bodies and femininity by female bodies, and that these bodies naturally desire their “opposite”.

This is the essence of why these ideas are seen as dangerous to society.

There is a practical need for male bodies and female bodies to come together in order to make babies, because society needs new people to replace the ones that die in order to continue. Gender norms are largely about making it more likely this happens, and to encourage the parents to stay together and raise the resulting children.

That's the "essential" truth that matters. We already have a working model of how to solve an existential question. And the likelihood that rethinking it from the ground up is going to lead to a significantly different, but adequately effective, and generally more satisfying for the average member of society solution is isn't great enough to justify the existential risk. Maybe we can redefine masculinity as preferring homosexual sex (male bodies desiring similar bodies), but what do we, as a society, actually gain from doing so?... Less heterosexual relationships, leading to less babies, leading to a dying society?... Where is the value in that?