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

How does this support your argument? You are still not engaging with the structure of the argument found in the article. If the argument is valid or seemingly valid, and pre-exists, but was never published, then it is good to have it written and published in a rigorous exposition. This will allow for subsequent analysis of the argument in follow up articles, responses, etc. You claim that the argument is not new, but you fail to show that it is wrong. You claim that the premises have been challenged, but you still fail to show how.

To justify your complete absence of engagement with the article itself, you claim that it was disproven by others. But you still fail to link to peer-reviewed articles on the topic; instead you show me two non-peer reviewed pieces that are clearly written in bad faith and make copious use of non sequiturs (e.g. Dolezal does not count because she's a rare/unique case, changing your name is stupid if people can still recognize you).

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.