The Dutch study is really good, but some of your other claims aren’t as robustly supported as they deserve, given that you’re arguing against something that is common perception and is backed up by studies that demonstrate a correlation that confirms common perception / common wisdom held by some people.

[Edit: I switched to the above characterization because my previous characterization was too harsh. I leave it below for reference, so you know why the comments may not be targeted at the above.]

The Dutch study is really good, but the rest of your claims aren't supported by any direct references. The reference you do have also doesn't support what it says directly--mostly it's a narrative account of how you can have good outcomes in cases where the statistics have suggested an increased rate of bad outcomes. [This was too strongly worded. Some of the other claims are supported directly enough that one shouldn’t be troubled.]

That's what the statistics always meant. The statistics never said that boys "need" a father in the home--they only ever said it helped. The narrative is encouraging, perhaps, for people who don't "get" statistics, who see something that looks like "this might make things worse" and go "I'll just give up then" rather than "maybe on average, but not for me!"

Anyway, the Dutch study is well-done and supports the idea that even the help isn't true: it wasn't the fatherness but rather ancillary factors that may have been responsible for effects seen in other studies. Or it could be that fatherness is important in some cultural contexts and not others.

Still, It would be nice to see some of the studies that show that being loved and safe are "much more important" than who actually provides that (maybe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2708328/, but the conclusion here would be "moderately more important" not "much"). Also, where's the study that shows that eating dinner together is more important than who is raising the child? This paper suggests that in terms of academic achievement, anyway, it isn't the meals that make any difference at that point (year-to-year), though it doesn't rule out a long-running systemic effect (though it would have to be mostly early in childhood for them not to catch it, if I understand their methods properly): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22880815/

Anyway. Interesting! But more references, please! The kinds of confounds that the Dutch study is designed to (partly) see through are present in many others. Due to this, it's better to use more tentative language unless you have a specific study in hand that seems really solid.