Hi, /lit, /sci here. Is this legit?

Hi, /lit, /sci here. Is this legit?

Possibly, why does it matter though? STEMshit is wrong regardless.

Sort of. I don't know the context but she's a Lacanian Marxist so I imagine it's a case of three things:
>Sokal and whatshisface taking it mildly out of context because it's a great stand-up-knock-down strawman of a genuinely annoying phenomenon
>Irigaray saying some gnomic Lacanian shit about how "even in how our language and consciousness structures reality, we subtly do sexist things, like making 'hardness' a positive, or seeing weakness as inherently feminine" or some shit like that
>Irigaray being so trapped in her non-referring world of bananas batshit Lacanian jargon that she doesn't even consider whether this might really be TRUE, because if it's not true, "something like it" still is, or it's true "in substance" and she was only "speaking metaphorically" or "dramatically, for effect"

Don't try to justify pure autism user

truth doesn't exist

What is "wrong" about discovering functions and regularities in nature?

No. Irigaray is the worst type of hack who spoils everything she touches. I once encountered a grad student who wrote a critique of Heidegger. What was the focus? How Heidegger's investigation of Being was contemptible for relegating "gender" to the ontical realm instead of the ontological. These cancerous pseudointellectuals are the worst that continental feminism has to offer. They'll transform any relationship of facts into a moral hierarchy with a relationship to oppressed social structures, and they have nothing more but an agenda to demolish any sort of progress we make in thinking. Irigaray and her ilk are hacks and parasites of the worst kind.

False.

None exist

>They'll transform any relationship of facts into a moral hierarchy with a relationship to oppressed social structures, and they have nothing more but an agenda to demolish any sort of progress we make in thinking.
Good post 2bh