I have a qualm reading this, and it's more about the nature of its opaque language than about what it is actually saying. You and I can understand the meaning of the ideas, but it becomes incomprehensible at a certain point to most readers. And it is that inaccessibility that creates a reactionary approach to these ideas and the people who create and hold them. This opaque language is both perceived and emphasized as privileged, "elitist" by reactionists, because overly-academic language is still generally thought of as such.

A language for some is not a language for all; by making these ideas inaccessible to the vast majority of people who could be potential allies, we are ignoring the realities of common rhetoric.

If the article was meant to take such feminist theory down from an ivory tower, it has already failed not even two paragraphs in.