I think your interpretation is spot on. Also, seems that these societies didn't just "trans away the gays," but they - and the author of this article - had/have males as their exclusive concern and focus.

All the same-sex marriages "between women" cited were actually between men. Gay males were forced to pretend to be women, so when two of them got together to have sex or to form a partnership or marriage, they pretended to be lesbians. Which rendered genuine lesbians invisible and meant women who loved women had no place at all within these supposedly "inclusive" and "more tolerant" societies.

The male-supremacist cultures discussed in this article treated lesbianism and the category of "woman" itself as territories to be claimed, captured, colonized and stolen by men. They did to female people within their own populations what the conquistadors did to them as indigenous peoples. Coz, contrary to what the wokesters today claim, humans in Africa, Asia and the Americas had figured out that there are two sexes and that men could use their superior strength and women's physical vulnerabilities to dominate and abuse women as a group long before Whitey from Europe arrived with his "binary notions" of sex.

Unfortunately this is pretty par for the course with lesbian relationships historically :(

Gay men could be gay men in some cultures, or they could be compelled into a sort of pseudo-womanhood in order to avoid breaking the taboo of MSM in others.

Lesbians though...virtually a non-entity in the historical record, comparatively speaking. On the one hand, what women did when they were alone together could remain their one business, and a lot of lesbianism may have been written off as playfulness or platonic love, since sex or sexual desire without penetration couldn’t be conceived. On the other admitting that women had sexual desires at all, least of all for each other, was taboo in way too many cultures for way too long.

Stuff like this is just some woque academic using hearsay to back up a hip MODERN point of view. It’s like when the chinesr communist party claims that Confucianism was always communist, because of Legalism, which can be seen as supporting authoritarianism generally and communism specifically. If Han Fei were alive today, would he even know what the hell Communism is, or even think about supporting it?