The basic (and simplified) idea is that gender--what we think of as masculine and/or feminine--is performed in the ways we act, speak, dress, move, etc. and doesn't really exist outside of that performance. We learn how to perform this way from dominant culture and conventions--what someone might (incorrectly) call "normal male" or "normal female" behavior. But these "normal" qualities (and genders themselves) don't actually exist--rather, we are all repeatedly mimicking them and are rewarded for doing so (or punished for not doing so). We merely impersonate the qualities we've been taught match the gender we've been told we possess (like females being demure or males being aggressive) until those impersonations (and gender itself) become belief and seen as something natural and assumed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dddcq/eli5butlers_gender_performativity/

[–] RupeThereItIs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (7 children)

So, in a nutshell, the assertion is that gender is entirely nurture and not nature.

Yeah, sorry, that is an extraordinary assertion and I'm going to need extraordinary proof.

Are there people for whom gender and sex don't neatly match up, or even those for whom it is purely performative, sure.

But they are statistical outliers, and not representative of the majority experience.

People can be different then the statistical norm, and that's ok, but to assert that this norm is entirely cultural is over the top self serving.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My understanding (and it could be incorrect) is that this is more of a definitional/philosophical thing.

Though you are more than welcome to read directly from the source Judith Butler who (to my understanding) first started this theory on gender:

https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1650/butler_performative_acts.pdf

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)