>>19553547
I mean this rather loosely, of course. The problem is that people see Jews like Butler attacking "Western [insert thing here]" and then take it as a philosophical attack rather than a racial one. It's racial. It is fundamentally racial. As a Jew, Butler wants gentiles to be reduce to subhuman slave status. Gentiles are below Jews, and every second that this belief isn't reflected in reality is a grievous offense to them. Thus, as she interprets all of her works through this lens, we shall too. "Masculinity" and "femininity" are very real things. Butler isn't trying to deconstruct them. Rather, she's simply denying the subhumans something that they should not have. "Gender" and "sexuality" are things for humans (re: Jews). They're very real things with a concrete existence (and thus, she reifies a form of idealism, something that you actually point out), it's just a crime that gentiles are involved in them.
Butler, likewise, absolutely does not deny the essential self. She very much does. This is in comparison to, say, Foucault, or Deleuze and Guattari, who reject such a thing, and are proponents of system that CAN be used to justify absolutely heinous degeneracy, but they also CAN be used to justify things like Giga-based National Socialism. Rather, Butler requires an essential self to be present when the Shiksa Goddess is reduced to a mere economic unit. Butler is, fundamentally, attacking gentile women by reducing them from women to mere female laborers.
All things can be deconstructed; all things can be constructed. If you aren't deconstructing and constructing yourself, someone else is. Yes, you are correct, Butler is trying to deconstruct White society. The question is, what does she want to construct in its place?