I dont know were the truth is, ... But your ad hominen is pretty nasty. Plus you sound very mansplaining right now. The "chick" in question seems to be a decent fellow: "Beth is Lifehacker's Senior Health Editor. She has written about health and science for over a decade, including two books: Outbreak! and Genetics 101. "- some chick at Lifehacker with a bachelors in biochemistry
You really want this to be about me don't you? It's beneath you and you know it. You probably already regret it. But I'll bite. Tell me why "chick" is derogatory but "dude" is not, because you and I both know I would have called her "some dude" if she weren't obviously "some chick." Then you can tell me how it's ad hominem because what's in dispute here is expertise and its place in the discussion. The fact of the matter is, the woman (the girl, the lady, the female - where's your happy place?) is putting forth the argument that we should only listen to experts, while herself being a Journalist Lite™ - here's her LinkedIn and here's her book, 50 outbreaks in 250 pages or approximately the depth of analysis one finds in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. When you're done with that, you can tell me how it's "mansplaining" in any way other than I'm male, she's female, and I'm pointing out the logical fallacy at the core of her argument (trust only experts, trust me I'm not an expert). Or you can say you disagree without arguing that it is immoral and sexist of me to raise objections to your article.