The sarcastic reply comment was downvoted for a reason, but I will point out the HN guidelines do specifically request you don’t imply someone hasn’t read the article.

The fact that this thread went downhill immediately does indicate this might be a really good guideline.

But I didn't imply anything, I asked if he had read it.

I wasn't trying to be rude, I legitimately think that the rest of that paragraph was a really good answer to his question.

(fwiw) you could have left the question out and your second sentence would have conveyed your intent perfectly.

I know you didn’t mean it that way.

It’s why the guideline is so brilliant, imho.

It is showing us something that isn’t obvious.

You are being well meaning, but there’s something about the question ‘did you read ...’ that gets people going when they are maybe on the fence about how combative they want to be.

No, I presciently scrolled through the essay to find this particular passage, so I could copy-paste it here, and didn't read any of the essay leading up to this passage or anything after that point. My reaction is an unmitigated hot take that I have taken zero time to consider.

Is that the theory you were trying to validate with your question?

No, I was actually really trying to figure out why you didn't mention the rest of the paragraph. It seemed like a good answer to your question. If you didn't think it was a good answer, it would have been helpful to know why you thought it fell short.

People are just really confused why you isolated that passage for criticism, when it is embedded within a long paragraph that makes it abundantly clear that Scott isn't saying remotely what you seem to think he's saying. He's not denying that he has a perceptible race or a gender. He's saying that knowledge of the therapist can be a distraction, and therapists generally see it as a duty to minimize such distractions, which makes fame an obstacle to his professional effectiveness.