Sexed equations

Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster. Irigaray, Luce. Parler n’est jamais neutre. Éditions de Minuit. 1987. p.110. (Quoted in and translated by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Intellectual Impostures, London: Profile Books, 1998, p.100.)

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/luce-irigaray/quotes/

It is notoriously difficult for  Anglo-Saxons to understand the French, as their way of talking is oblique and not literal.  In this way, the whole of French philosophy is opaque to literalists, who can pontificate and object until their bovines greet them at the dusk, but will not make any progress.

For the unsophisticates:  she is playing with an idea.  "Perhaps..." and "Let us suppose..." introduces a playful modality.  Already, you need to assume she isn't making an analytical statement of the sort that are most common in America, when you are trying to advance an argument.  So, if we keep in mind that she is not American, or British, what is the argument that she is really trying to advance?

Well, the speed of light stands for something else.  It is in fact related to Western notion that male sexuality is primarily visual.  To decode the puzzle:  the primacy of male sexuality is a sexed equation.

Are we aware that Irigary is concerned with sexuality as it relates to gender?  She is not your typical, puritanical USA feminist, in that she is totally concerned with sex.

So, if she is concerned with discussing sexuality, rather than criticizing science, which is in fact what she is doing, what might she be obliquely suggesting?

To recap:   she doesn't think that sexuality should be given over to the primacy of the viewer who is nominally male.  She wants something else and why not?  Could it be so bad?

What might be her equation that is not narrowly sexed male?  A human equation, maybe?

Is it possible for Anglo-Saxons to follow this chain of thought all the way through, or does it take a Zimbabwean woman to explain this to you?