Lormand has a better take than Dennett. Dennett thinks qualia would have to be irreducible. Lormand writes
If such arguments were convincing, they would weigh against any reductive theory of qualia. But they should not be convincing. A powerful but not dismissive response turns on distinguishing qualia properties from ways of representing them. Even if a creature has a special way of representing phenomenal properties that is unavailable to us, we can in principle objectively specify, express, or test for these phenomenal properties in other ways.
Dennett simply defines qualia overly narrowly, letting the least naturalistic philosophers own the term.
An amusingly-written critique of some of Dennett’s ideas:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/cons/qualia.htm
Lormand has a better take than Dennett. Dennett thinks qualia would have to be irreducible. Lormand writes
Dennett simply defines qualia overly narrowly, letting the least naturalistic philosophers own the term.
What article or book is that quote from?