From your link's link to the wikia, it seems the two objectionable things Tso did were:
1) Try to make a distinction between rape involving force, threats or violence, and rape without. But specifically stating the lack of force, threats or violence does not make that rape less of a crime. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but it's true. A victim of a crime, and a victim of the same crime plus a broken arm (for example) are obviously distinguishable.
2) Point out that to be guilty of rape, you have to be conscious of the fact that your victim is not consenting. The laws may be different over there to here, but certainly in Britain this is true. To have committed a rape, you have to have sex with someone without their consent, but also do so believing they do not consent. Rarely do people actually verbally give consent to have sex, but it is obvious they are consenting.
If these are the two most objectionable things Tso did, then I don't see how Sharp (or anyone) can conclude Tso is a rape apologist. Unless the angle is to smear someone in the hope of getting him replaced with a woman.