This article is good but it's a little all over the place.

Girls excel at sports, girls go into STEM fields, girls become politicians and CEOs. Thankfully, these girls are no longer the exception, but the rule. 

Women are still way underrepresented in those fields, so they are not the rule, unfortunately. (And gender identity ideology will make it even more rare, by policing women who break sex stereotypes and pressuring them to identify as men.)

Ugh, this is so damn gross: saying Jo March is a man because she doesn't like dresses?

By turning Jo into a transgender character based on her dislike of dresses, polite society and the idea of marriage, we necessarily suggest that girls are meant to like dresses, polite society, and the idea of marriage. In wanting to become more progressive in how we view and accept gender, we’ve actually ended up less so. 

Well said:

Since the people diagnosing children with gender dysmorphia are often the same people who would agree that gender is a social construct, it is worth noting the contradiction in this argument. ‘Born-females like dresses and makeup and born-males like arms and sports because society has told them to like those things. Gender is not connected to sex’, they claim. But then a girl comes along who likes arms and sports, and suddenly gender is connected to sex, and she becomes a boy.

Not really sure what the message is here. This person tries to defend tomboy but then rejects it in a way that suggests that it is inadequate or that it is only appropriate for younger girls.

Whilst I thank ‘tomboy’ for this assurance, I also leave it in my past. I am a go-getter who plays a lot of sports and loves adventures, but that’s not all that I am. I now have bigger aspirations, bigger things that I want to define me — bigger things I need to be.

Also-- not gonna be the tomboy police but I was kinda surprised she was so into pink and dressing up and stuff as a child, if she were a tomboy. Different strokes, I guess?