What grounds do you have for saying this?
"It was a terrible paper"
Bob Qq

I’ll just repeat this bit, since you apparently didn’t read it:

One common theme is that the defenders tend to be happy to reenact, often with much less nuance, the same hubris that the paper exemplifies.
They are happy to deem this work well-researched, but they clearly lack the familiarity with literature and the subject matter needed to know what relevant established work has been overlooked.
They praise the novelty of the argument, without entertaining the possibility that, even if this is all new to them, every piece of the argument is not just unoriginal, but painfully familiar from the perspective of most trans readers or readers embedded in trans politics.

The complaint was specifically that Tuvel’s argument has not advanced anything and that the premises of her work have already been challenged by black and trans scholarship.