That's true, but it's properly an argument against all peer-reviewed scientific works.

I would like to see more awareness of the increased skepticism that attaches to scientific work whose conclusions we find morally repugnant.

I don't see that this conclusion is particularly repugnant. However, the author has a strong bias in the form of related opinions that are both morally repugnant and highly irrational, and that casts strong doubts on his objectivity here.

While it's good to point out that this also does not invalidate the conclusions, it's a rather different thing from what you've said.