My apologies if I am misunderstanding, but I have heard that deconstruction theory has had a significant influence on contemporary discussions around gender.
I would argue that we should distinguish between the image of language and the definition of language.
For love as an example, one might associate it with images such as red, roses, or a loved one’s appearance. However, I consider these to be images of the concept rather than its definition. These images of love change over time, but the definition of love should be understood separately from them.
Well, for those who assume that everything is constructed of language, anything can be deconstructed and reconstructed. Hence discussions on how gender is constructed, performed, and how it can be reconstructed (e.g. non-binary).
Not everything is made of language. For example, an ostensive definition is a non-verbal definition. A sound, gesture, or image can ostensively define something perceptually recognizable which hasn’t been verbally defined yet. For example, a new style.
Well, we can use a red colour as a symbol of love in some contexts. In other contexts the same colour may symbolize anger, attention, danger, stop! etc.
A colour is obviously not a verbal definition. Nor is it an ostensive definition of love. A picture of a loved one’s appearance might ostensively define something about someone’s feelings of love?
I understand deconstruction as ways of reading, understanding and expressing words or sentences in unorthodox manner deviating from the usual or popular meanings.
For example, Plato did it already. He said love is serious mental illness. And there is a saying that one suffers mentally, physically and financially as well as wasting time and life, from what one loves most.