This is an invalid critique of the article. It is critiquing it for something it doesn't do, now justified by the idea that people might ignore what it actually says.
No, I disagree. Your critique is shallow even for it's relative prominence. The article literally opens with a counterpoint that you shouldn't generally use this as an excuse. What you said in your comment acts almost as perfect critique for itself: it sounds right, but it has zero substance. Why should anyone value a critique that says almost zero actual things about the article and instead draws a general conclusion that sounds like it came from purely reading the headline?
To say there is no issues with irrational behavior in the LGBT community online would be criminal dishonesty. This is not a personal indictment against trans people or LGBT people as a whole, who have existed before Twitter, before Tumblr, and before Live Journal. The author, IMO, should not have to jump through Olympic hoops in order to distance themselves from the transphobic conclusion being pushed on them. They said that wasn't their intent, and the article doesn't appear to draw that conclusion. That really ought to be the end of it.
This is exactly one of the problems with modern internet discourse. And I know someone is reading this comment wondering if I'm "one of the good ones". This mindset is, in itself, toxic and irrational. While bad intent matters, the absense of evidence of bad intent should be good enough ground to stand on.
Symbol interposition? I don't know for sure, but I would guess gVisor is using ptrace or another mechanism, to interpose on syscalls, not library calls. But these flags, I believe, only impact interposition of symbols in the same library, so even if gVisor did use interposition for something, it may not matter.
Have you ever seen elevators where you select a floor from the outside and it gets assigned to one of multiple elevators? Those seem like they might be doing something more sophisticated.