When someone tries to tell you that "the science is settled", ask them to define "science". If they believe that something like this is "scientific" in any way, shape or form, I think you can safely ignore them from that point onward.
The article's abstract is even more confusing:
The article aims to transform narratives surrounding Utah’s Great Salt Lake, often referred to as “America’s Dead Sea,” by reimagining how brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana) are perceived in science, culture, and art. It introduces the concept of hydrosexuality to bridge these realms, thereby enriching feminist blue posthumanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy. By navigating the environmental narrative of the GSL, the hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive system of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology and culture. The article provides a framework for integrative cultural analysis that bolsters arguments about the multilayered exploitation of the lake and amplifies voices that recognize the brine shrimp as vital to the survival of multiple species and to the GSL as a unique ecosystem. Furthermore, this cultural analysis draws inspiration from low trophic theory and Queer Death Studies. This multifaceted approach is exemplified by two case studies in the arts, which gradually alter white humans’ perceptions and understandings of the brine shrimp, helping to reimagine the GSL in the context of rapid climate change.
After reading that, I couldn't help but wonder whether this was another "prank the science journal" effort, where a fake article was so cleverly written as to confound the editorial staff and persuade them to publish it. Alas, not, it isn't. To confirm the authors' perspective, they even created a video showing themselves in a "Cyber wedding to the brine shrimp".
I absolutely, emphatically do NOT wish to know how the honeymoon played out! I suspect crabs have nothing on brine shrimp when it comes to consummation . . . !
I rather suspect that any allegedly "reputable" and "scientific" journal publishing such utter crap has lost all claim to being either "reputable" or "scientific", and can henceforth be classified (in its print editions, at least) as birdcage liner and/or emergency TP.
Peter