I might glossed over some detail there, and instead gave the original poster the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that the meaning was as following:
- Unknown female geniuses lost to history due to gender inequality are many - The article itself does not make a good argument of why Ranelagh in particular might be a good example. The bar should be higher. - Maybe the book gives a better argument
As mentioned, I might have gotten the first one wrong, though I did not, as you put it, defend it. Disagreements are appreciated. Instead, I believed you created an argument, which was based on a lot of assumptions (gender, motive, misogyny, etc, hence "straw man") and went much, much further in the opposite of "avoiding unrelated controversies".
---
There are many women who have failed to get the recognition they deserve. In fact, there are many people who have, full stop. There is also a market for upselling historical figures.
Saying someone or something is underrated and then making a compelling case for it is incredibly difficult, man, woman, art, or whatever.