Kerr's paper is quite specifically about not believing in singularities, not about not believing in black holes. It's hardly a controversial opinion in the scie

Kerr's paper is quite specifically about not believing in singularities, not about not believing in black holes. It's hardly a controversial opinion in the science community to believe that singularities in black holes are an artifact of our incomplete mathematical representation of how gravity works. That is not the same as suggesting that black holes or event horizons don't exist. Kerr's solution to the field equations involves two event horizons to begin with, and his argument in the new paper is based on Kerr black holes and explicitly talks about event horizons in multiple places. I'm very confused as to why you believe that paper provides significant argument as to why calling SgA* a black hole would be jumping the gun.