Isn't that interesting. I often examine the language used by the trans cult, because it tells us so much, and so I understand the impetus to try and do the same from their perspective.
All I will do in response to this piece is point out that when I have evaluated their terminology, the most obvious part of the methodology they employ is to use language to obscure, to confuse, to define those who use the words as an accepted part of the cult, and those who reject the language as outside the cult. The meanings of the words are almost incidental to them.
The complaint in this article is that those critical of genderism use plain statements that are factual and convincing, but underneath, somehow, those reasonable statements must mean something else. The problem for them is people read our statements and accept those statements without confusion. Everything in the article is begging the question, assuming that the plain sense cannot really be all there is, determined to reject the conclusion.
On a positive note, it's the first use I've seen of the argument that 'trans women' is just a prefix that hasn't gone straight for the racist comparison of 'black women'. Sadly, it has gone straight for 'gay women', and I'm not sure swapping out racism for homophobia is much of an improvement.