Indeed Sally Hines gives reason why academia needs to be rethought from the ground up. I would much rather advise my child to do anything but study with this person. Flat earthery is next on the menu.
Read this paragraph from an article Hines has published. It is unintelligible word salad (and I have read and written a book on Judith Butler). One can easily think that this movement is full of sycophants relying on everyone kowtowing to the most polysyllables. Break this down 
> and you have a tautological recycling of empty rhetoric: "intersections of gender and sexuality" (while Hines clearly does not understand the difference between either), empirical research which is buttressed by word salad, so not very empirical, but very vinaigrette dressing,
> "identity practice" as opposed to identity? (and identity presentation? identity feeling? identity schmidentity?), "absent from feminist and lesbian and gay theories of gender and sexuality" because feminist and sexual theories are rooted in material reality, not fabulations of
>self-obsession, "dichotomous model"... Again, all this is word salad which is saying absolutely fucking nothing. Academic publications should be ashamed of putting forth such rubbish. What is dichotomous is how men calling themselves lesbians have been able to thwarts women's
political language and advancements; to frame women as oppressors while wearing sheep's clothing pretending that women are oppressing them (hint: we're not); and by relying on absolute hokum to pretend that a "dichotomous model" is anything but reified with men shouting down
women--gay women specifically--about how they should be silenced, murdered, raped. The core of this political movement is more misogynist than any previous men's movement as it is seeks to oppress women from outside (as they are men) and from inside (as they feign being women).
So when we push back, the cries of "transmisogyny" (a paradoxical word since that describes what they are doing) abound & the reversal of political positions & strengths. These men hold the political power, have a heftily funded lobby behind them, & women are the primary victims.
Ye, take a look at another of her publications: the definition of 'transgender' that she gives here would be considered offensive today.This is how unstable this theory is--from one publication to the the next, the definitions are either entirely absent or they don't jive at all.
Or there is a pretence to pretend that terms are clearly defined when they are fundamentally not: gender goes from "feeling the opposite sex" to masculinity and femininity. "Subjective gender difference" effectively amounts to personality. How on earth is this at all scholarly?
This bit here is pure sophistry: there is no emerging body of work that sits on anything coherent which is how many people who worked in queer theory in the 1990s (ie. myself) are scratching our heads by the mental gymnastics performed here. For ex, "the narrow definition of the
economic"--is this not just "economic"? Or, the use of "material"--bazinga! That's the problem with this hodgepodge of five cent terms--materiality actually does mean something, it is a reference from language. I read through this blurb & it occurs to me that words are like Xmas
tree ornaments, or like Dr. Spaceman of _30 Rock_, "Science is whatever you want it to be." But with these folks, it's not just limited to science, it's language too. I just burbbled a gerblex.... If you don't understand what I wrote you are cis-sexist oppressor!!! But maybe this
is the "presumption of 'natural' differences" between coherent linguistic constructs and garble? Maybe I'm just linguistic-centric? The message here is clear materialism bad, women using their eyes and mouths to name oppression=bad, & we are all duped by what are not "natural"
differences, but what are actual differences. Does Hines have her head up her arse? Does she really think that Derrida's differance is a wider social strategy? Of course not, but she profits from this to the tune of a ream of bogus publications that are meaningless. Or, to quote
Laverne & Shirley, "schlemiel schlimazel hasenpfeffer incorporated". And this phrasing actually has a meaning.
Fin.
Fin.
