Judith Butler

In Judith Butler’s “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” she introduces a mystifying idea, “gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original.” Responding to Butler’s statement, I will argue how the accepted heterosexualized gender of society is trying to constantly reproduce an ideal image of itself. The respected image is composed of two defined genders of male and female. These two genders are classified by basic anatomical differences between males and females. Society assumes natural anatomical males must portray masculine characteristics, whereas anatomical females must portray feminine characteristics according to accepted sexual norms. Butler depicts the heterosexual identity encompasses an individual’s personal feelings of affection and attraction to a person of the opposite sex, creating a distinct gender separation. However, there is the question where are the origins of these sexual norms from? If there is no original, than heterosexuality is theoretically continuing to copy itself and imposing a set of guidelines for defining one’s identity.

I agree with Butler’s statement, “gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original,” as this suggests one’s sexual identity is trying to replicate it’s accepted image and that gender is a concept without a particular origin. If sex and gender are not given constructions and are just imitations of an undefined original without an origin, then one achieves and portrays their own gender identity through a unique social performance. As a result of this performance for society, both sex and gender become cultural constructions with a heterosexuality priority. Ultimately, this leads to the definition of one’s identity and body, and place in society.

In society, many rigid gender boundaries have been imposed and attempt to limit one’s performance to an ideal heterosexualized gender standard, resulting in a negative connotation regarding the defiance associated with homosexuality. Even though...