The article seems to be very shoddily researched. A couple examples.
1.
Would sci-fi focus, as it has for much of its history,
largely on brave white male engineers with ray guns
fighting either a) hideous aliens or b) hideous
governments who don’t want them to mine asteroids
in space?
That was the science focus in the '20s and early '30s. By the late '30s the "ray guns vs. hideous aliens" stories were largely relegated to third tier, low circulation magazines, and generally only appeared in mainstream science fiction as a deliberate joke.2. The author identifies the SP leaders a "three white males". I'm sure it is going to come as a surprise to Sarah Hoyt to learn that she is male. Larry Correia is Hispanic, which is a closer call--there is much confusion over whether or not Hispanic is an attribute that can be added to white/black, or if it is a separate category.
Reminder to all posters that Eric Raymond was nominated on a Puppy slate and lost to "No Award."
"But in recent years, as sci-fi has expanded to include storytellers who are women, gays and lesbians, and people of color, the Hugos have changed, too."
I welcome the increased diversity, but surely this should read "[...] expanded to include [more] storytellers who are women, [...]". While there are probably notable examples of the other categories listed, Ursula K. Le Guin immediately springs to mind as belonging amongst those "Gods" discussed in the previous breath - and she won a Hugo in 1969 and another in 1974.