I had the same issue. I think that their point boils down to what we consider "technical" as a label on people. Basically that "technical" is more of an identit

I had the same issue. I think that their point boils down to what we consider "technical" as a label on people. Basically that "technical" is more of an identity rather than someone having a specific skillset. Something the author feels excluded from, even though they do work that's relevant and impactful. I think so anyway. As I said, I had the same issue as you having difficulty getting through it. The article takes a long time to actually get to a point, circling around things rather than concretely building towards something. If I had to guess it is more of a flow of thoughts and not really a classical argument. It also makes it hard to draw any conclusions about it. Because I think I sort of get where they are coming from, but at the same time I am not sure if I entirely agree. In my line of work technical just means "being skilled with IT related technical skills" without a judgement about other skill sets. It is just there to distinguish between people who can dive into systems hands-on and those who have other skills and bring value in other ways.