I do not agree with you. The entire portions of the article that you say are “[explaining] her history” are indeed anecdotes that she is relying on to drive a w

I do not agree with you. The entire portions of the article that you say are “[explaining] her history” are indeed anecdotes that she is relying on to drive a willingness to then take her other observations more seriously. This clearly qualifies as presenting a collection of anecdotal data as support for a point of view. To be clear, there is nothing at all wrong with her choosing to do this or with anyone choosing to publish it. The part I feel is wrong is the attention paid to it and the endorsement that it is valuable. These come at a great expense because they invite people to decide that the emotional mental portrait it paints in their mind is a reasonable basis to form opinions for the general kinds of policies or actions they would support.