At last, I thought, he's finally moved on from "Transgressing the Boundaries". On page 2:

In my parody article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (Sokal 1996), I wrote ...

Oh well.

Which part of this is controversial?

> The Journal of Controversial Ideas offers a forum for careful, rigorous, unpolemical discussion of issues that are widely considered controversial

In section 8 he suggests the ideas he's critiquing are "controversial" which in this context you'd assume would be a good thing, but apparently not?

Sadly, Sokal's legacy has been smeared by the later culture warriors, and I am not sure whether he is just fueling the flames with this piece by attacking some random junior scholar, citing altmetric garbage as a justification along the way.

I was hopeful there was one place we could publish controversial and wildly unpopular facts without being censored. It seems this is not the case. The JCI seems to be another feminist rant.

Given the recent advanced in reading minds and using AI to reconstruct what the person is thinking, I want to reconstruct minute-by-minute chain-of-thought of a late term abortion from the mother's point of view, from the father's point of view, from the doctor's point of view, and from the baby's point of view.

We will have to wait until the technology is more advanced, but reading the baby's mind will be a game changer.

If we could do that, I think it would change the debate forever.