I concede that much of what Butler wrote in the early 90s seems like common sense now. But that shows her works lasting relevance and value. We live in a world where identity has splintered into different populations, each seemingly autonomous and self-defined. I do want to adapt Butler's work to a more radical Marxist politics, but that's another project.
Right now, my project consists in my opposition to guys like Andrew Tate! I want to promote femininity while remaining in the context of male heterosexuality. Hypermasculine movements scare me. It would be cool if some community existed where men promote defiance to gender norms, but alas, no such den of gender trouble exists. Hence I'm stuck wandering the internet looking for people to listen to me talk about Judith Butler. Because in Butler lurks the true antidote to Andrew Tate: a movement as far in the opposite direction as possible, men embracing femininity. I believe Butler says in an interview that heterosexual men can use androgyny to mitigate their own toxic masculinity, but I can't find the source.
And for people who find Butler too difficult or downright bad at writing, I've always enjoyed her writing, dense and tough to parse as it can be. It has an unusual, somewhat awkward poetry to it.If she is a bad writer and analytic philosophers are good writers, then I would rather be a bad writer.