No, I think the author made no point whatsoever that he didn't himself debunk with contradictory statements not even a few paragraphs later, peddled anecdotal pseudoscience and attempted to decry any criticisms as attempts at silencing or censorship, starting with the title of the paper itself.
The hostility and derision is used to attack not those who are simply wrong and seeking to start a discussion so they can learn more, but those who attempt to frame their wrongness as if it's right, especially when motivated by ideology, like this clearly is.
Just like those peddling horse-dewormer as a COVID cure, honestly, what do you expect? Such is the freedom of speech, when you say something really really dumb, like that evolutionary psychology is real, people telling you that you might be really really dumb isn't some conspiracy out to get you or your viewpoint, it's just a natural reaction when confronted with stupidity.
I could equally make the claim that I'm met with hostility and derision because I have the "wrong research" on how the Earth is actually flat, and the science community is clearly part of a conspiracy to censor me.
> We are in the middle of a movement where even teaching about sex differences is becoming difficult or impossible
[Citation Needed]
But of course there will never be a real citation here because you're just demonstrating more of the same persecution complex that the author also has. Kids are still taught about chromosomes and all that.
But talking about how it's difficult to teach kids about binary sex definitions and bizarre pseudoscience about how evolution selected women to be in the kitchen is the equivalent of saying how it's difficult to teach kids how Pluto is a planet.
Curriculums evolve as our understanding of things evolves, so as a society it's our duty to make sure to add the nuance necessary to give people a more complete understanding of the world, which can only ever be a good thing.
The funny aspect of what I said is of course referring to the repeated self-owns within the paper, I mean, sheesh, if you're gonna peddle your unremarkable anti-science ideology at least be consistent. How can you argue for an end-all, be-all definition and then proceed to debunk it in the next paragraph? I guess reading what you wrote wasn't an evolutionary advantageous skill