Butler exposes herself as anti-scientific, "For Butler, it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it." as most any Biologist will explain that humans are a sexually dimorphic species and they have and do encounter sex throughout the natural world.

Gender as a social construct and questioning of gender 'norms' is a worthwhile philosophical inquiry, but Butler's disbelief in Biology gives me great pause. Primatologist Frans de Waal, in his recent book "Different," believes gender differences are likely explained at the Biological (i.e. cellular) level. Peterson (who I know I will get hate for mentioning) but as a world leading clinician in personality, and highly cited, believes personality differences account for variance in gender expression, and that this is at least partially psycho-physiologically informed. Peterson does support the idea of Gender being somewhat abstracted from biological sex surprisingly enough.

EDIT: I see my point is debated thoroughly already in other threads. I do think Frans de Waal's thought on gender is interesting though and distinct from Butler. Butler goes too far with her abstractions in my opinion. You might as well say biological life is not a real thing, and wouldn't be if we didn't exist to categorize it, and we're merely performance art to be interpreted relativistically. There is no grounding in the material or scientific. I get that that is the the point, but then what's the point.