I don't want to get into too many specifics because I think it's impolite to criticize people behind their backs, but I also don't want to completely brush off your query.

The problem is that the "evidence" is mostly citations to more opinions. I read her posts. I read everything she cites. I read what the citations cite. Usually I end up with a couple of studies that are themselves somewhat over-interpreted, and even then the authors don't even endorse the message that Elle has conveyed but rather something more modest.

So after all that work, my confidence in the claims being true is pretty low, and I've learned very little.

And note that she doesn't cite, for instance, Steven Pinker very much.

I still admire her knowledge and I appreciate that she at least does reference sources (a lot of people don't), but there's usually quite a big gulf between the thesis she advances and what the data supports.

So, compared to the typical bluster: massive kudos to her! For establishing plausibility, it's usually outstanding. But for establishing a high degree of likelihood for the foundational claims of late-stage feminism, I find that her writing falls pretty short. I don't think that's her goal, exactly, but it also means that if I'm looking for something where that is the goal, her articles aren't an ideal source.

For our purposes here, I just want to say: she does a good job as far as it goes, but that's not the kind of job I'm looking for, for the most part. (And it's also not the kind of job needed to objectively demonstrate that, for instance, the very real problems facing women are caused predominantly by "patriarchy".)