How does Judith Butler’s view of gender differ from Luce Irigaray’s view?

The philosophical disagreement between Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler centers on the ontological status of gender.1

Irigaray views gender as an ontological reality. She argues that Western philosophy and psychoanalysis have historically been dominated by a male perspective, which treats the male subject as the universal norm while relegating women to the status of the "Other" or "matter". Her project seeks to challenge this by establishing a culture and ethics that recognize two distinct, sexed subjects, thereby doing justice to both men and women.12

In contrast, Butler contends that gender is an ontological illusion. Drawing on the concept of performativity, Butler argues that gender is not an innate essence or underlying nature. Instead, it is a series of acts and behaviors that, through constant repetition, create the false appearance of a stable, pre-existing identity. For Butler, the subject is "performatively constituted" by these deeds rather than existing prior to them. Consequently, while Irigaray seeks to validate a feminine subject within a dual-sexed framework, Butler aims to destabilize gender categories entirely to expose their artificiality.13