In the article, materiality was perceived to be effects power possesses along with its productive purpose. Therefore, under these assumptions, gender is impossible to understand neither as a body nor a particular sex.
The article also indicated the “abject designates here precisely those ‘unbelievable qualities and ‘uninhabitable’ zones of social life which are nevertheless densely populated by those who do not enjoy the status of the subject but whose living under the sign of ‘unlivable” which is necessary and required to circumscribe a political leaders”. The final part of the paper ends with a series of questions which include “How an individual can separate him or herself from social blindness and perceive the body as a variation of materialization which is controlled by a series of regulating norms? After this separation, there is a need to assess the functioning of heterosexual hegemony during the formation of what the article perceives tp be a viable body”. The article also raised questions on the subject, such as how bodily formations are capable of attaining such a paradigm of abjected bodies and fields of deformation which are at times not quantifiable as human.
This article is an aim to try and compare the paradox that involve gender, the body and the parameters associated with the interrelation and combination of these two aspects. It can be established that the authors of the article are of the material aspect of the body and how is far much relevant than its regulating factors monitoring the materialization of bodies. One aspect that is also mentioned to some detail in the paper is permativity which is done to evaluate the processes such as a power of discourse that is reiterative in nature and creates phenomena which it is responsible for constraining and regulation. I agree with the views of the author in the sense that “sex” is not the constraint upon which gender is artificially