You are painting with a very broad stroke when you are talking about eukaryotes in general, and using that to say something about humans specifically. See Induction - Deduction, it's a blatant fallacy they are committing here. You can debunk literally any and all of such pseudo-scientific TRA articles with this. Just because there is an exception to a rule doesn't mean you have now debunked the rule itself. You've just identified an exception. They are quite blatantly peddling fallacies and hoping no one notices.

If, for instance, there were no universal differences between "living" and "nonliving", and there were exceptions, the conclusion would be the categories of "living" and "nonliving" are illusory and don't exist outside the human mind.

Actually there's a lot of debate on this topic, often spearheaded by the same people who peddle the above crap, to muddy the waters with regards to what constitutes as living. Hence the abortion debates, it's all about the question of "at what point is a fetus actually alive". They want there to be a gray area between living and dead, because that gives them control over women's bodies. Claiming that there is no difference between men and women and these are just made up categories is just the first step in men appropriating reproductive functions from women, which is already happening with TRAs inducing lactation to LARP at being nursing mothers.