I have no dog in this fight but that is a very uncharitable "synopsis". The main argument that I took away is that the plays contain many references to things (

I have no dog in this fight but that is a very uncharitable "synopsis". The main argument that I took away is that the plays contain many references to things (foreign cultures, social customs, musical instruments, etc.) that Shakespeare had no way of being exposed to, based on what we know of his life, but this woman's background did expose her to all these things, and she ran in the same circles at the same time (enough so that she could have been his lover). The secondary argument is the feminist content. It's all obviously very circumstantial and doesn't constitute "proof", but it's highly unlikely we'll ever get any actual proof after five hundred years of digging into the limited evidence from the time. The point is it's interesting to consider, and might make you think differently about the context and content of his (or her) work.