I confess I'm amazed that even Weinberg couldn't see that this piece was pitifully stupid (or maybe he advised them to write anonymously because he did--but then why publish it?) Philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) comments here and here. Philosopher Jason Brennan (Georgetown) gave permission to share his apt comments from Facebook about this absurd display:

The central thesis of this anonymous piece is that certain gender-critical feminists (hereafter GCFs) are actually engaging in *activism* rather than scholarship, which presumably means whatever academic freedom should be extended to scholarly speech does not quite apply to them.

But the article doesn't even try to provide evidence for this claim (that it's activism rather than scholarly speech). Rather, all it does is list examples of things which the GCFs think and say (things which are trivially implied by their position) in their scholarly works and then complains that these things are morally wrong and bad. But it doesn't provide evidence that they are in fact engaging in activism rather than scholarship.

This kind of behavior is getting tiresome. The standard liberal theory distinguishes between speech and violence, as well as between speech and activism. In order to generate illiberal conclusions, some philosophers try to argue that speech is in fact a form of violence. It's not convincing, so now they turn to arguing that it's really activism. Also not convincing, in part because this long-winded piece contains literally zero evidence for such a conclusion.

NB: I am not endorsing GCF. I am merely critiquing the transparently bullshit behavior various philosophers exhibit toward the GCFs.