{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02388608176389527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005512172714745062, 'mean_word_length': 4.6571428571428575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Are ‘core’ feminist critiques of securitization theory racist? A reply to Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit

Since your article ‘Is securitization theory racist?’ was published five months ago, we have had numerous conversations. Imaginary ones so far. I have responded to your claim that my 2000 article ‘The Little Mermaid’ provides a reaffirmation of racist thought, and to the moves you make to get there. I have tried to envision how you might reply, how I would then respond, and so on. I am happy that we now have the possibility of moving our conversations out of my head and into the pages of Security Dialogue. Derrida mentioned the need to quote extensively when replying to readings of one’s work, and I am going to quote extensively, too. I have reproduced the two paragraphs that are of direct relevance to the analysis you make of my work in Figure 1. Here, I have underlined the words that are of particular significance to the arguments I make. Figure 1 shows the paragraphs as they were printed in the original online published version of your article. At the time of this writing, they are what is available online. I know, though, that corrections will be made to a couple of passages, and I will take those corrections into account in my reply. Figure 2 shows how the corrected passages will read, indicating where changes will be made to the original online version. Before I enter into the discussion of your reading, perhaps a few words on why I felt the need to respond in the first place. After all, your engagement with my article is just one paragraph set within your much longer critique of securitization theory as developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver. The first reason is that the negative connotations of ‘racist thought’ are so profound that just one use of such a charge might stick. I appreciate your opening clarification that ‘the argument presented here is not a personal indictment of any particular author’, and that you set your understanding apart from ‘commonsense notions that reduce racism to interpersonal prejudices of openly bigoted individuals’ (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019: 2). But your article does identify