I had read the original article when you posted it and was extremely disappointed, though not particularly surprised, when it was banned. It's very thoughtful, well-reasoned and well-supported. This is exactly the type of thing we should want to see as part of the public discourse, even if it turns out to be wrong in every conclusion, because it would be productively wrong: we learn something important from the refutations, if the refutations exist. And if it turns out to be correct in every conclusion we also learn something important if people strive to show it to be in error but fail.

This kind of thing is what public discourse is for. (It's not the only thing it's for, but this is a very important function.)

Righteous extremism seems to appeal to a rather large subset of the population. The problem is that extremism almost invariably causes suffering. Some conceptions of what is righteous are intrinsically less problematic than others, but in the end the extremism will get you regardless.

Medium's response to your article is one example.

Another very recent example comes from San Francisco, where a lesbian Asian woman in a mixed-race relationship who is an intersectional feminist...is being attacked as a closet Republican and racist in part because she used the word "Family" in the name of her tiny local civic organizing group ("Family" is apparently only used as a right-wing dog-whistle now) and wasn't carefully gatekeeping who was allowed to join by grilling them on their political beliefs. (Biden won over 85% of the vote in San Francisco. If ever there were a place where it was pointless to grill people on their political allegiance, it would be San Francisco. Well. Berkeley might be even more pointless.)

There are lots of examples.

Unfortunately, the right is presently worse than useless in restraining the extremist illiberal left: the extremist illiberal right seizes upon things like this in order to justify their own flavor of regressive, autocratic agenda, and the rest of the right doesn't have a voice loud enough to be heard over it. This just encourages the extremist illiberal left: look at the alternative! (As if there were only one!)

So it falls to the non-extremists on the left to rein this in through exposing the regressive and harmful practical consequences of leftist extremism--hoping that the wayward sheep who have grown fangs and a taste for blood can be coaxed back into a more normal aspect. And if the arguments fail to convince the extremists (who, this time around, have already armored themselves with the rhetorical tools to ignore any argument they don't want to hear, assuming they can't block it entirely), then it falls to the non-extremists on the left to actively prevent them from causing harm, if possible.

I hope you stay visible, and I hope your voice continues to be heard.