@Nellooo I enjoyed reading that article very much. It's absolute up my street. 
Not, because of the writer but the people he argued against. It holds the very belief that I have, and it's those that can actually cause change. It has basic understanding of society and people. It understands both the individual, science and social constructs and how they operate not as concrete block of views that are unbreakable.
I would love to comment on every each point made, but that would bore the thread off.
Let's just say that the writer did contradict themselves when it came to understanding relativity and absolutism about the issues they were arguing for. For any one who wants to change a society, they have to believe that every each one of them is relative. By doing that, it makes you believe that it's possible to deconstruct social constructs, theories and ideologies that we hold.
We all know, the world is not stagnant. People are evolving, society's social constructs are changing. We know this, because if it wasn't the case, we would not be discoursing how to dismantle patriarchy. Or even how to tackle capitalism or racism. We also, know that the only absolute, theme that runs through it all is power, held by men. The power men hold is deconstructable Which makes it relative in its essence. If we don't believe in change, why do things?
They also, lost me when the complaint against minority groups holding the power for which meaning of a word that oppressed them should derive. I completely agree with counter argument. This same argument would be helpful for women trying to explain feminism and its effects. For a man to say they understand, and should be able preach to women about what feminism is and how they know best would be called mansplaining. Telling us women what it means. If you notice the writer didn't mentioned this but focused more on racism and how one group should not have power over a word , it's meaning and the interpretation of it.
Above all, postmodernists attacked science and its goal of attaining objective knowledge about a reality which exists independently of human perceptions which they saw as merely another form of constructed ideology dominated by bourgeois, western assumptions. I do agree with argument that science has been used to justify means of oppression by the oppressors. To deny this and then think of it, as not a plausible argument was wrong by the writer. The very justification of racism came from science. To say that the same can't happen now or isn't happening would be wrong and naive. Some are being done knowing and other unknowingly. We don't have the full grasp of science.
My issue is, evolution. how can we know that what we are saying now is absolute or concrete? We can't. To believe that is to stop any change we will try to make. I don't think it's ok for feminism to be ok with absolutism. It would destroy the very nature of the arguments that will ever be put forward to try and help us.
One of the things the writer pointed out, was the power the oppressed now have. The dominance they have over discourse and the stifling of freedom of speech. Usually, this sort of speech comes from those of the dominant group who still want to justify why it's ok to oppress.
At no point did the writer point out equal discourse. Based on history, again, i would say, usually those with power tend to dominate debates. What they also, do is use their freedom as a means to oppress further. In this case it would be done knowingly because they do recognise that what they are saying goes against the new reason or a way other way of thinking. It does become a conundrum to whether allow the oppressed be told what it is they are and not given the same platform to voice what they are and should be?