You do keep repeating that 'gender' is a social construct. The whole premise of trans identity rests on the concept of this innate 'gender identity'. Even though Judith Butler herself said that 'gender' was not innate, it was performative.
Again, a trans person's personality traits are partly innately influenced. The categories of men & women behaviours are socially constructed so a trans person is simply categorising their traits based on what society has already determined. In other words, its not the trans person who is decides what the categorisations, society does & trans person just follows.
Butler's position is more nuanced than people understand.It is not so much that Butler argues for gender as completely socially constructed. The value of her theory is in the idea that the reification of gendered performances make gender seem less constructed than it actually is. From Reddit:
"I would point you to Butler's "Bodies that Matter"--which came after her more famous "Gender Trouble" and was, in part, a response to some of the arguments that were circulating based upon the first book. From the introduction:
"Is there a way to link the question of materiality of the body to the performativity of gender? And how does the category of 'sex' figure within such a relationship? Consider first that sexual difference is often invoked as an issue of material differences. Sexual difference, however, is never simply a function of material differences which are not in some way both marked and formed by discursive practices. Further, to claim that sexual differences are indissociable from discursive demarcations is not the same as claiming that discourse causes sexual difference. ...In other word, 'sex' is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static condition of the body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize 'sex' and achieve this materialization through forcible reiteration of those norms" (1-2).
By way of illustration, consider that "male" and "female" bodies are largely indistinguishable until puberty. The establishment of "difference" at young ages depends upon checking a very small and particular portion of the body. Without that inspection and its determination of "gender," there is no clear way of marking "difference." Yet, once that inspection has happened, once a "body" has been marked as "male" or "female", a whole host of discourses are brought into play. Boy babies are strong, adventurous, brave. Girl babies are tender, beautiful, cooperative. Certain roles are immediately assignedclothing, toys, ways of acting, ways being acted upon, etc. Children are treated differently in schools and various environments as a result of being identified as a "boy" or a "girl"even when there is no substantial or essential difference in behaviour or appearance. To the degree that one then conforms to expected behaviours and appearances (to the degree that one performs), one is counted as human, as a part of society. Yet, all of this is built upon perception and cultural norm, rather than on any substantial bodily difference. All this is not to say that bodies don't matter, but that many of our ideas about "gender" and sexual "difference" are enforced and inculcated when that "bodily fact" is known only to a few. The "body" itself has little bearing on these perceptions and discourses of gender and difference. "
Butler is particularly concerned with the social and political implications of those discourses which, while not completely separable from "bodies," far exceed them and are grounded more in particular regim"