I disagree. I read the full article and enjoyed it a lot. But the attempts to pull in “late capitalism” and gender / queer issues were just poor writing. It’s like mixing all the paint colors and just getting an ugly gray. There was no convincing connection to “structural inequality” in this at all, nor any sense of significant radical opposition to entrenched powers that be. Piling that stuff on just made the essay bloated. It felt more like having an unsupported agenda of radical left issues forced upon me with no serious intellectual basis or connection, with lots of language thrown in to make sure you know that the author feels those radical aspects are 100% correct (without justification) and must be taken as truth and as an assumed shared starting point for the reader. It significantly detracts from the article, lowering both the basic writing efficacy and the intellectual merit, and watering the whole thing down as an assertive (but unsupported) criticism of capitalism instead of the rather interesting discussion of negativity that it used as a bait and switch.