At first, the implication of this idea is the acceptance of primary philosophy that biology is destiny on issues of gender identity. The acceptance serves to reinforce the alternative rejection of culture as a definition of gender identity and the development of patriarchal account of culture that assumes that feminine and masculine genders would build inevitably by culture upon female and male bodies thus making the same biological destiny inescapable. It therefore implies that, the idea of culture as the definition of gender identity is rejected because of its possibility to create binary view of gender relations in which human beings are divided into male and female that are two distinct cut groups. The option implication of the idea therefore stands to be opening up of possibilities for a person to choose and form their own personal identity.
According to Butler, the feminist closed up this option of choosing personal gender identity (Butler, p509). Gender identity need to be considered as the relation among socially established subjects in identifiable frameworks. Butler’s argument generally implies that gender should not be seen as a fixed attribute in a person and rather it should be considered as a fluid variable that changes and shifts in different times and contexts. Considering the implication of gender identity as presented by Butler, it is worthwhile concluding that every individual puts on a gender performance whether traditional or not, anyway, and therefore it is no longer a question of whether to do a gender performance, but what custom that performance will consider.
The fundamental differences between sexes have historically been considered as an argument against equal rights. The evidential ideas that support gender construction as the cause of gender inequality is the socio-biologist have relied upon the notion of a universal, human nature, innate, a nature that includes