And while I'm assuming the person in question identifies as a man based on what he says, he(she) might not, and might just be in the closet saying the right things because he knows the environment he lives in. If that's the case, the article might even be harmful since it reinforces that this is a persona and never even touches on the idea that it might be a representation of his(her) actual gender identity.
But in either case, the big thing to me is that the article is harmful because it makes it everyone else's business. It creates this world where people are expected to validate that avatars online match physical bodies. Another way of looking at the question of whether or not this person is in the closet is that none of us know this person in real life, and it's kind of messed up that we're jumping behind the veil he put up so that we can validate whether or not he's transgender or nonbinary or what.
He doesn't owe us any of that. He doesn't owe us coming out of the closet, or staying in the closet, or explaining whether or not there is a closet, or justifying what he's doing. Even in the real world when we see nonbinary people, we're not owed some kind of explanation of their entire world; not unless that's something they want to share. So the article turns something that should be a personal decision into a curiosity that needs to be explained, to the point where the media actually tracked this person down for comment rather than just leaving him alone.
An article that talked to someone like this and (consensually) explored his motivations on his terms might be normalizing, but to me this comes off as the opposite -- it comes off as reinforcing that people should be shocked by gender fluidity.