If true (and I’m not saying it isn’t)-that’s despicable-but also irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of Foucault’s claim that sexual orientation is a historica

If true (and I’m not saying it isn’t)-that’s despicable-but also irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of Foucault’s claim that sexual orientation is a historically contingent social construct. A philosopher’s personal misdeeds don’t-in general-count as evidence against their theories. If the theories directly serve to justify their misdeeds, that might be some reason to discount them-but Foucault’s claim that sexual orientation is a historically contingent social construct has no direct bearing on the issue of sexual abuse of minors, so allegations that he engaged in that aren’t relevant to them