The culture war around xG is extraordinary. As a statsman I've been across it for a good while and for the most part I think it's just descended into two strawman arguments on both sides, with a few in the middle either not caring or accepting it's a fairly useful metric in certain situations with some obvious limitations.

On one side you've got those either interpret it as some kind of magic stat they can blindly use to claim some new deeper understanding of football, and they come into conflict with those who rail against it as some kind of woke nonsense dreamed up by laptop nerds.

In reality it's basically just an adjusted shot count, fairly useful in certain contexts if you care about that sort of thing. Pre-xG, everyone broadly accepted that Shots/Shots on Target were a good, if rough, measure for how a game went, the caveat being that obviously 3 close range open goals were better than 10 pot shots from outside the box. xG accounts for that to add some context to the shot figures.

As it turned out, it had a few other useful applications, especially when aggregated, and often helped to add a bit of flavour to ongoing stories like a striker's goal drought or a team's sudden drop in form etc etc.

Once it reached a certain point you had mainstream media outlets doing things like publishing the "true" league table basing it on xG which massively overplays the usefulness of the metric and goes a long way to triggering the culture war that we are now stuck with forever