Sexist, Egotistical, Lying, Hypocritical Bigot

In the movie 9 to 5 with Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda, and Southern sweetheart Dolly Parton, I had the pleasure watching three driven, courageous, and (mostly) intelligent women overcome their oppressive 'sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot,' boss named Frank. While I was watching this movie, I was pleasantly surprised how that in the year 1980 there was already a film exposing the hypocrisy, harassment, and sexual harassment women were and are subjected to in the workplace.

I had trouble relating this film to any specific assigned reading, since I felt this film focuses on bigots like Frank who are in the modern workplace, as well as how women have had to overcome and be subjected to people like Frank for an extra-ordinarily long timeframe. I felt that the readings we were assigned focused mostly on specifically gender theory and the philosophy and history of sex. So I'll do my best to summarize an essay I found to be interesting and important to discuss, this essay is Judith Butler's essay on Performative Acts and Gender Constitution.  

In her essay, Butler says that gender identity is a performative accomplishment compelled by social sanction and taboo. She believes that gender is based on 'performance', which is to say that one's acts determines one's gender. She also argues that gender is not a 'natural fact', and that instead it is formed over a 'stylized repetition of acts' (270).  So to be rather brief (and from my understanding), one can will/choose to be a male or female based on their actions according to Butler. 

I personally don't agree with Butler's stance on gender, since I believe sex and gender are not separate (despite what many post-modern philosophers believe). In other words, I reject gender theory, and I believe this theory causes more confusion and gender dysphoria. I believe that Biology determines what sex/gender one is. And furthermore, one's own subjective belief on their gender identity cannot and does not change their biological DNA. This is a simple truth. People who deny their biological identity (that they are born male or female) are denying their human nature. Obviously when one denies their human nature and biologically determined DNA structure, this causes an enormous amount of confusion into one's life. In turn this leads to people seeking surgical operations and hormonal supplements in an effort to 'change' their gender. This confusion is also evidenced in the enormously high suicide rates of people who struggle with gender identity. 

Here is what Dr. Paul McHughe, a former psychiatrist and chief for John Hopkins Hospital and currently a distinguished service professor of psychiatry, says below in reference to gender dysphoria and gender re-assignment:

"Sex change is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder"

Source: Text from Dr. McHughe's commentary in the Wall Street Journal published on CNSnews

What do y'all think? Do y'all agree with Judith Butler and the common post-modern belief of the malleability between sex and gender? If you do believe that gender is socially constructed, then what is the purpose of having a separate definition for 'sex'? Feel free to disagree (or agree) with me :)

Moving forward...I see how many modern studies and essays like Butler produced on gender and sexuality brings to the forefront important issues that need to be addressed. For instance, issues such as the unequal treatment of women in the workplace, which the film 9 to 5 addresses. Frank the "sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot" blatantly discriminates against women in the workplace. For instance, he forces Dolly Parton's character named 'Doralee' to bend over to pick up something he drops, so he can see down her shirt. He also denies Lily Tomlin's character 'Violet' a promotion in favor of a much less qualified male co-worker.  Violet is a single-mom and has been working at the company longer than Frank (as well as the less qualified male co-worker) has.

How often have we heard stories similar to this?  Where sexist bosses like Frank exploit women for their own financial benefit? I think one of the most intriguing things about this film was that it covered almost all of the stereotypes and prejudices women have had to overcome and are still overcoming in the modern workplace. Ultimately, I believe this film and as well as Judith Butler's essay brings up some important issues that need to be discussed.