>It is incument on Butler to make some kind of biological argument
>like this to support her thesis.
Why is that?
>Butler or anybody who wants to challenge the fundamentality of
>heterosex as a natural or instinctive fact and act has to mount
>some kind of biological argument like I pose above
I don't see where she argues against "the fundamentality of heterosex" whatever that is exactly. She's putting the whole question in different terms. To say that she has to mount (uh huh, uh huh, he said mount) a biological argument is to say there is only one way to think about gender, and that is basically what she's arguing against.