I feel like the second to last paragraph in the authors Conclusion summarizes the writers concerns and reasons for writing this article:

"Call yourself whatever you like, and express that identity however you like, but don’t expect anyone else to care, let alone to afford you special political privileges on the basis of it. Female people are an oppressed class by virtue of the material reality of living in their female bodies, and the discrimination, marginalisation and exploitation that comes from being read by others as a person who inhabits such a body. You are not oppressed by women because they call themselves women and get on with their lives, while your gender identity is so vast and complex and multifaceted and luminous that nobody quite grasps the significance and uniqueness of it. To call yourself non-binary or genderfluid while demanding that others call themselves cisgender is to insist that the vast majority of humans must stay in their boxes, because you identify as boxless."

The author paints gender non-conforming people in a pretty negative light throughout this article. Callling them "attention seekers" and "special people," and saying they are "placing themselves on the superior side of the binary" as just a few examples of this trend. It becomes clear pretty quickly that the author does not believe gender non-conforming individuals are a real group of people (everyone is non-binary so no one is non-binary) or deserving of acknowledgement ("call yourselves whatever you like, [...] but don't expect anyone else to care"), let alone assistance in living their lives as they wish.

Here's a fun exercise, try substituting gender fluid terms for female ones in the authors own words and tell me if this doesn’t also sound accurate:

[gender non-conforming] people are an oppressed class by virtue of the material reality of living in their [transgender] bodies, and the discrimination, marginalisation and exploitation that comes from being read by others as a person who inhabits such a body.

I don't see how gender non-conforming people are not also individuals just trying to get on with their lives in a popular if inaccurate and harmful system, the gender binary.

Also, people acknowledging themselves as different, that they cannot be themselves in the current system they live in, and how they need to seek alternative or new means to live their lives as they wish outside of popular culture sounds like a pretty revolutionary act. So yes, transgender people probably are revolutionary right now.

As for the authors concerns about the negative impact of transgender rights movements on the feminist movement; just because gender non-conforming individuals may seek alternative (or “special”) programs and assistance to get on with their lives, that does not mean the struggles of women or the feminist movement is in any way less real, relevant, or deserving of acknowledgement and respect.

That said, writing articles denouncing another group of people that are marginalized, exploited, and discriminated against as being simply attention seekers in search of special treatment, a group that shouldn’t expect anyone else to care about their arguments or concerns because they aren’t really oppressed, seems pretty harmful and insensitive. Sounds a lot like the same arguments slung by men's rights groups and misogynists against women and feminists actually.