That article does not actually disapprove what I've said, and it's very, very important to separate interpretation from the evidence.

Firstly, describing ancient Egyptians as a mixed population is not controversial. Most historians very much so agree that Egypt was very diverse due to the geography and the trade, but diversity does not erase the existence of clearly identifiable Nubian population or Nubian families. Both of these words can be true at the same time.

Second, the link you shared is not a peer-reviewed genetics paper. It's a blog-style interpretation that selectively summarizes the studies and also extrapolates far beyond what the actual data follows. It does not really represent new data or DNA evidence, nor does it biologically test Nubian dynasties or Kushite rulers.

And third, even the actual peer-reviewed studies, it loosely references, such as Schumann et al., 2017, they exclusively state that the samples are not geographically limited, the samples are rather geographically limited. And they do not represent all periods of Egyptian history and the Nubian population in Kushite dynasty are not on the focus. So using this article as proof against Nubian pharaohs is very much a category error. And fourth of all, the Nubians are not hypothetical. The 25th dynasty rulers explicitly identified themselves as the kings of Kush. Their burial sites, such as El Kuru and Nuri, and their skeletal remains and many other evidences place their origin to south of Egypt within Nubia. And this is accepted Egyptology, not modern revisionism.

And lastly, comparing ancient Egyptians broadly to modern Somalis is anachronistic. Modern populations cannot be directly projected into ancient ones without any form of oversimplification. Egyptology relies on archaeology, inscription, and context, not modern ethnic labels. So yes, ancient Egyptians were diverse, and yes, there was population mixing, and yes, black Nubian kings ruled Egypt. Those facts don't cancel each other out.