Dichotomies, heterosexism, and ignorance of any historical context plague Butler’s article. Butler’s thesis upholds dichotomy, as she defends an anthropology of complimentarity. This is a lacking theory, which strictly limits biological men and biological women into social conditions. While this theory deserves criticism, the other two deficiencies are more important to discuss in this focus paper.

Butler’s theory posits that women and men are physical compliments of each other that gain a godlier whole when they are engaged in heterosexual, procreative sex. This then denies homosexuals the attainment of communal godliness. Immediately, she made heterosexuality the norm, and offered no room for difference, either in sexual orientation and gender identity. Her normalizing of heterosexism not only excludes others, but also implicitly condemns them a life without fulfillment of a complimented existence.

If Butler were able to accommodate differences in gender identity, gender definitions, and sexual orientation, she would still have to reconcile her theory of complimentarity with its expansive history. Griffith properly identifies this problem. The idea of complimentarity in its purest form may not pigeonhole women in a patriarchal system, but that is how the theory has been practiced throughout history. We might not have to discard the theory of complimentarity because of its battered past, but if it cannot be reapplied to society without heterosexism and patriarchy then it should be discarded forever.