Well, does it, though? It seems like it ought to, given...wait. I already gave this answer, except to Bob Surenko.

I have the same point here, too: it's not always obvious. In fact, the point of your article is that it's not always obvious even to researchers in the area what is going on because there are a lot of factors at play. To Bob, it seems like you gotta have a dad in the family to raise boys as men. But the Dutch study (and you) argue no: perhaps counterintuitively, at least in that cultural context and with the measures they used, kids do fine--including boys raised by a lesbian couple. They might need male role models, but they apparently find them.

But now you're making an "obvious" point about what is more important, but again without the actual research that backs it up. The claims of some psychologists and/or anthropologists, some of whom are well-respected, is certainly better than nothing! But we just were arguing that people could get confused about these things. Current life is really weird compared to most of human history. Nuclear families without extensive support networks are weird, but so is the internet, so are public schools, etc. etc.. We've done all sorts of weird things hoping to make conditions better, and in a lot of ways we have made things better, but we can't necessarily conclude that our instincts or psychological needs are well-calibrated any longer.

If you were only trying to make the "it's possible" point about not needing fathers, no worries! You've passed that bar by miles. Heck, you could have done that by describing what the statistics actually mean in a collection of highly pro-father-involvement stats like this: https://www.all4kids.org/news/blog/a-fathers-impact-on-child-development/

However, you made several statements about what was necessary if "need dads" wasn't. The Dutch study covered part of it quite well. But the "love and meals together" part was kind of left dangling, which is a shame: if it is deeply established with reasonably good control of confounding factors, it's nice to know it; and if it isn't, but seems like a good guess, or has a robust superficial correlation (which dad-is-important also has, but your point is that dad-is-there-and-is-a-male-human isn't the causal factor), it's good to know that too.