Jane Clare Jones — let’s debate Irigaray

If there is any mutilation going on in this scene, it is being done by the feminist police force who rejects the lived embodiment of transwomen. That very accusation is a form of “mutilation” as is all transphobic discourse such as these.

Judith Butler

Hello Dr Jones – I noticed you’re ultra keen to publicly discuss womanliness and feminist philosophy with a male mathematician/numerologist (who profits from the views?) Quite the casting agent you’ve got in RadFemCentral.

Now … Why would you do that? With a man: Why would you argue a premise supported by the DUP and UKIP, but no other political parties in the UK, including the one to which I belong, Plaid Cymru?

‘Why? Is it easier to feign expertise around the un-initiated? Can’t hold up to the intellectual challenge of peer review?  Playing the Learned One and pushing a shallow and untenable agenda, supported by scruffy JBP dudes, or whatever fash-lite centrists, who fall for a bogus line of blog-bite pseudo-psychoanalysis?

(Trotsky, is that you?)

Why are gendercrita so keen to ally with the likes of David Davis? Shame. Shaaaaaame. This picture will haunt Miranda, if not also the magazine subscribers who say s/he (Miranda has a female passport but also states s/he is male, however that works) ripped them off.


Instead of shucking podcasts for your friends in the didn’t-read-the-syllabus-crowd, why not debate someone who also holds a doctorate, and happens to think your interpetation of Irigaray fails to account for critical notions of embodiment and phenomenology. It must be easier to blether when your host doesn’t know a thing about the topic.

So let’s debate.

Are you game, or too busy shooting fish in the barrel brine of Wine-Mum parochialism?

I have some questions about your research.

How on earth did you manage to avoid even a single discussion of Deleuze in your dissertation? — — Academic to academic, Dr Jones, but were I your external reader … I would have torn your approach to Foucault apart based on this stunning theoretical omission alone. You make much of Butler’s distance from Irigaray, yet somehow avoid sourcing any of the (far more nuanced than yours) major research on this point of contest.

For example, Alison Stone throughly charts Butler’s intellectual debt to, and eventual demarcational shift from, Irigaray in her book Luce Irigaray and Sexual Difference (Cambridge UP, 2006) … which isn’t in your bibliography. Guessing you, and your supervisors, missed that one. Of course the quintessential essay on Irigaray as entirely an invention of Anglo-American academia is by Christine Delphy, which (stunningly) also didn’t make it into your bibliog. Gaffes like this are very telling as to the gaps in your philosophical knowledge background. And they lead to completely false claims like below.




This is what padding your PhD diss looks like …


Gilles Deleuze? Félix Guattari? Who are they? Did they write Sumthing on gender?

Netdoctor? You cited fucking Netdoctor?


Really hit the Lacan in your examinations of Irigaray, huh: spaaaaaarse.


when you reference Milo Y, but not Monique Wittig, in a PhD dissertation on feminism.


also, the ‘beheading medusa’ sounds very, very familiar. Rings a bell you might say.

Moral of the story? They whinge about the urgent need for discussion — but they’re unwilling to debate anyone they can’t bafflegab with bottom-tier grad school Butler.



One Comment on “Jane Clare Jones — let’s debate Irigaray

  1. Pingback: pwy ydy’r psyop nawr?

%d bloggers like this: