short response

For a short response I can think of two possible fairly open-ended approaches.
(Probably best to try one or the other)

One possible approach would be to attend to Tuesday's pairing and look for some ways to put the Foucault text and the Agamben text in dialogue with each other.  Identify a couple of points of contrast or convergence and briefly discuss what you see as the significance of that.  Perhaps also consider what implication there might be for us today.

A second possible approach might be to consider how the biopolitical questions engaged by Foucault and Agamben differ from or resemble the lines of inquiry we've just finished with Irigaray.  My hunch is that differences are probably more abundant.  Again identifying some relevant particulars from each and providing a brief discussion would be the goal here.