To me, reading that paper felt like the author or at least some of the editors published it with the awareness that it would show the flaws in gender ideology reasoning. She never makes the argument directly that zoophilia is right, but always provides an If-Then set up, leaving the reader to have to show either why the logic is incorrect, or to choose to reject the first premise in order to be able to reject the conclusion. That means anyone who doesn't want to embrace bestiality has to either reject queer theory or explain why it does not lead to this outcome.

I would have thought a majority would be quick to want to reject bestiality and so face that choice. Unfortunately it's seemed like a lot more people have shrugged or been amused, feeling no need to worry over the potential results of their claims. Like so many of the things I assume are satirical, what I might imagine to be some kind of "gotcha" can't even work anymore. People are just always so much further gone than I expect.