Was my CT article on singleness mean?

Dani Treweek, who has written a book arguing that marriage has been overvalued relative to singleness in the church and that the church needs a “theology of singleness” (disclosure: I generally think any argument for a “theology of” is a bad one; we do not need a “”Study of God of Singleness” or “Study of God of Marriage” or “Study of God of Whatever”; we merely need a Study of God, i.e. theology, but this is no knock on Treweek specifically, but the entire modern discourse which wants every theme to get its day in the sun), has responded to my <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/september-web-only/singleness-is-not-sin-young-marriage-church-wedding.html" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">recent Christianity Today article</a> primarily not by rebutting points, but <a href="https://twitter.com/danitreweek/status/1701244048999059724?s=20" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">by screenshotting feedback</a> she’s gotten from her “large & diverse online [parachurch] community.” <a href="https://medium.com/@lymanstone/was-my-ct-article-on-singleness-mean-e1e0e3edaaac">Website</a>