I used to find Alex Sharpe's stance on this surprising, to put it mildly. How can anyone think a group of people, any group of people, should be outside the law? Still less someone versed in the law thinking like that?
But nothing shocks me now about people who subscribe to identity politics and victimhood. All the rest of us are merely bit part players in their own narcissistic dramas.
Helen Joyce makes a great analogy with mathematics, if you make a mistake somewhere in a proof (e.g. if you say 0=1) then your whole equation is broken and you can 'prove' all manner of nonsense. Sharpe's argument is a perfect example of how this works in practice. The starting point is TWAW and the end point is that sexual intercourse has nothing to do with sex, and sexual orientation is mere bigotry. The steps along the way are all perfectly logical, so the only way to reject the conclusion is to reject the premise, which very few academics are brave enough to do.
It was reading Alex Sharpe’s commentary on MacNally that ‘peaked’ me as an undergraduate so reading this is balm for the soul – thank you!
Hope you don’t mind a bit of unsolicited editing advice:
“McNally was collected by M and her mother while wearing a strap-on dildo underneath a pair of trousers. At some point during this trip, the two engaged in sexual activity,…”
Might just be me, but the way this is phrased the image that came to mind was sexual activity in the car with mum driving… Might scan better if you change ‘this trip’ to ‘at some point during McNally’s visit’ or something like that.
I used to find Alex Sharpe's stance on this surprising, to put it mildly. How can anyone think a group of people, any group of people, should be outside the law? Still less someone versed in the law thinking like that?
But nothing shocks me now about people who subscribe to identity politics and victimhood. All the rest of us are merely bit part players in their own narcissistic dramas.
Helen Joyce makes a great analogy with mathematics, if you make a mistake somewhere in a proof (e.g. if you say 0=1) then your whole equation is broken and you can 'prove' all manner of nonsense. Sharpe's argument is a perfect example of how this works in practice. The starting point is TWAW and the end point is that sexual intercourse has nothing to do with sex, and sexual orientation is mere bigotry. The steps along the way are all perfectly logical, so the only way to reject the conclusion is to reject the premise, which very few academics are brave enough to do.
It was reading Alex Sharpe’s commentary on MacNally that ‘peaked’ me as an undergraduate so reading this is balm for the soul – thank you!
Hope you don’t mind a bit of unsolicited editing advice:
“McNally was collected by M and her mother while wearing a strap-on dildo underneath a pair of trousers. At some point during this trip, the two engaged in sexual activity,…”
Might just be me, but the way this is phrased the image that came to mind was sexual activity in the car with mum driving… Might scan better if you change ‘this trip’ to ‘at some point during McNally’s visit’ or something like that.
Sounds excellent, can't wait to read the book