Someone obviously got your one a thesaurus for his birthday. And apparently his reviewers didn’t see fit to point out that Big Words don’t actually impress anyone &/or make you sound clever. Perhaps he felt a need to overcompensate as a lecturer in Law writing an article about Philosophy that mostly reads as if Prof Stock nabbed a sandwich he was after at a conference one time & he’s exacting his petty revenge with swipes at her for, eg, identifying herself as a Professor of Philosophy on social media & when writing for non-academic publications.
A joy & a delight having yet another man tell us that trans women must have unfettered access to all women’s spaces & they are very exactly just like women. I don’t think I’d heard that they absolutely don’t experience male socialisation before now though…
It really worries me that someone who is in a position of power over young people considers that even if some trans women (or men pretending to be TW) use women’s spaces to assault biological women that’s no justification for excluding TW. That he considers somehow their exclusion would be more harmful, without being able to make a cogent argument for this; & without addressing an entire tranche of the GC position.
It’s a thoroughly tiresome retread of some very tired arguments, but it’s likely to impress some people because it has Links To Studies. And an academic wrote it. It has a veneer of… respectability? As in, it’s not simply shouty-ranty; & it gives an initial appearance of going beyond the whine of “just be kiiinnnddddd”. But it’s “just be kiiinnnddddd” swaggering around in cap & gown & trying to knock down GC arguments - & instead simply showing up the TRA agenda as all sorts of disturbing, misogynistic & frankly lacking in logic.