On the plus side, at least she's expressing her opinions in a more appropriate form than a series of tweets.
The immediate problem I have with her post though is her early description of the Maya Forstater situation, which even I as someone with only a passing interest in this topic know to be inaccurate. Which immediately means I can't trust anything else she subsequently cites either. So it just becomes more opinion. Opinion which I'm also not inclined to trust given it comes off the back of a series of tweets that I know misrepresented the opposing argument.
This is a problem generally but particularly on this topic. I often see people on both sides referring to different studies, professionals and scientific evidence as proof that they're right and I have zero faith that that evidence is reliable, or that they themselves fully understand it, or they're not using it as justification for a bad faith argument they'd be making even if the evidence disagreed with them. Though that's not to say the use of false information is equal on both sides, or that scientific and medical consensus doesn't lean in one particular direction.