Whut in tarnation ah w'd propose in place of these corncepshuns of cornstruckshun is a return t'th' noshun of matter, not as site o' surface, but as a process of materializashun thet stabilizes on over time t'prodooce th' effeck of boun'ary, fixity, an' surface we call matter. Thet matter is allus materialized has, ah reckon, t'be thunk in relashun t'th' produckive an', indeed, materializin' effecks of regulato'y power in th' Foucaultian sense. Thus, th' quesshun is no longer, How is junder cornsteetooted as an' through a sartin interpretashun of sex? (a quesshun thet leaves th' "matter" of sex untheo'ized), but rather, Through whut regulato'y no'ms is sex itse'f materialized? An' how is it thet treatin' th' materiality of sex as a given presupposes an' cornsolidates th' no'mative corndishuns of its own emerjunce? Crucially, then, cornstruckshun is neifer a sin'le ack no' a causal process initiated by a subjeck an' culminatin' in a set of fixed effecks. Construckshun not only takes place in time, but is itse'f a tempo'al process which operates through th' reiterashun of no'ms; sex is both prodooced an' destabilized in th' course of this hyar reiterashun. As a sedimented effeck of a reiterative o' ritual prackice, sex acquires its naturalized effeck, an', yet, it is also by virtue of this hyar reiterashun thet gaps an' fissures is opened up as th' consteetootive instabilities in sech cornstruckshuns, as thet which excapes o' exceeds th' no'm, as thet which kinnot be wholly defined o' fixed by th' repetitive labo' of thet no'm, dawgone it. This hyar instability is th' deconsteetootin' postibility in th' mighty process of repetishun, th' power thet undoes th' mighty effecks by which "sex" is stabilized, th' postibility t'put th' consolidashun of th' no'ms of "sex" into a potentially produckive crisis. Sartin fo'mulashuns of th' radical cornstruckivist posishun appear almost compulsively t'prodooce a moment of recurrent exasperashun, fo' it seems thet when th' construckivist is cornstrued as a lin'uistic idealist, th' construckivist refutes th' reality of bodies, th' relevance of science, th' alleged facks of birth, agin', illness, an' death. Th' critic might also suspeck th' construckivist of a sartin somatophobia an' seek assurances thet this hyar abstracked theo'ist will admit thet thar are, minimally, sexually diffruntiated parts, ackivities, capacities, ho'monal an' chromosomal differences thet kin be cornceded wifout reference t'"construckshun." Although at this hyar moment ah's hankerin' t'offer an absolute reassurance t'mah interlocuto', some anxiety prevails. To "concede" th' undeniability of "sex" o' its "materiality" is allus t'concede some vahshun of "sex," some fo'mashun of "materiality." Is th' discourse in an' through which thet corncesshun occurs-an', yessuh, thet corncesshun invariably does occur-not itse'f fo'mative of th' mighty phenomenon thet it corncedes? To claim thet discourse is fo'mative is not t'claim thet it origeenates, cuzs, o' exhaestively composes thet which it corncedes; rather, it is t'claim thet thar is no reference t'a pure hide which is not at th' same time a further fo'mashun of thet hide. In this hyar sense, th' lin'uistic capacity t'refer t'sexed bodies is not denied, but th' mighty meanin' of "referentiality" is altered, cuss it all t' tarnation. In philosophical terms, th' constative claim is allus t'some degree perfo'mative. In relashun t'sex, then, eff'n one corncedes th' materiality of sex o' of th' body, does thet mighty corncedin' operate - perfo'matively - t'materialize thet sex? An' further, how is it thet th' reiterated corncesshun of thet sex - one which need not take place in speech o' writin' but might be "signaled" in a much mo'e inchoate way - cornsteetootes th' sedimentashun an' produckshun of thet material effeck? Th' moderate critic might corncede thet some part of "sex" is cornstrucked, but some other is sartinly not, an' then, of course, find him o' herse'f not only unner some obligashun t'draw th' line between whut is an' is not cornstrucked, but t'explain how it is thet "sex" comes in parts whose diffruntiashun is not a matter of cornstruckshun. But as thet line of demarcashun between sech ostensible parts gits drawn, th' "unconstrucked" becomes boun'ed once agin through a signifyin' prackice, an' th' mighty boun'ary which is meant t'proteck some part of sex fum th' taint of cornstruckivism is now defined by th' anti-cornstruckivist's own cornstruckshun. Is cornstruckshun sumpin which happens t'a ready-made objeck, a pregiven thin', an' does it happen in degrees? Or is we perhaps referrin' on both sides of th' debate t'an inevitable prackice of significashun, of demarcatin' an' delimitin' thet t'which we then "refer," sech thet our "references" allus presuppose-an' offen cornceal-this prio' delimitashun? Indeed, t'"refer" naively o' direckly t'sech an extry-discursive objeck will allus require th' prio' delimitashun of th' extry-discursive. An' insofar as th' extry-discursive is delimited, it is fo'med by th' mighty discourse fum which it seeks t'free itse'f. This hyar delimitashun, which offen is inacked as an untheo'ized presupposishun in enny ack of dexcripshun, marks a boun'ary thet includes an' excludes, thet decides, as it were, whut will an' will not be th' stuff of th' objeck t'which we then refer. This hyar markin' off will haf some no'mative fo'ce an', indeed, some violence, fo' it kin cornstruck only through erasin'; it kin boun' a thin' only through info'cin' a sartin criterion, a principle of seleckivity. Whut in tarnation will an' will not be included wifin th' boun'aries of "sex" will be set by a mo'e o' less tacit operashun of exclushun. Eff'n we call into quesshun th' fixity of th' struckuralist law thet divides an' boun's th' "sexes" by virtue of their dyadic diffruntiashun wifin th' heterosexual matrix, it will be fum th' exterio' regions of thet boun'ary (not fum a "Posishun," but fum th' discursive postibilities opened up by th' consteetootive outside of hegemonic posishuns), an' it will cornsteetoote th' disruppive return of th' excluded fum wifin th' mighty logic of th' heterosexual symbolic. Th' trajecko'y of this hyar text, then, will pursue th' postibility of sech disrupshun, but proceed indireckly by respondin' t'two interrelated quesshuns thet haf been posed t'construckivist accounts of junder, not t'defend cornstruckivism per se, but t'interrogate th' erasures an' exclushuns thet cornsteetoote its limits. These criticisms presuppose a set of metaphysical opposishuns between materialism an' idealism embedded in received grammar which, ah will argue, is critically redefined by a poststruckuralist rewritin' of discursive perfo'mativity as it operates in th' materializashun of sex.