I felt like the justification for saying that agile was not good for underrepresented groups came very late, but it is there and it actually is not a bad argument.

> We’ve long known that eliminating bureaucracy, hierarchy, and documentation feels great, until you’re the person who needs rules for protection.

I think the article eventually makes good arguments for this, at least if you are willing to say that code review and pair programming are things that spring out of the spirit of the manifesto.

Basically they author is claiming that the goal of the agile manifesto is to remove oversight from developers so that they can focus on "the project". The downside is that you are losing oversight of bad behaviour, which gives space for work-place bullying. (and the other downside argued is that developers, who are also stakeholders, do not have a voice in questioning the utility of the project overall).