The article seems to equate actual speaking time in the movie with ~women's voices being heard~. I think someone took an analogy and decide to go full literal with it and write an article about it. Disregarding context is never a great idea when looking at any story. Look at Pocahontas, damn it, she gets tons of screen time and attention and is also the only non forgettable character in the whole movie, she just doesn't speak a whole lot during it because it doesn't suit her character.
Mulan is literally a story about a woman infiltrating the army, based off a chinese opera play, in which its clearly explained that she avoids talking because doing so will blow her cover. What the hell do they want? That she bursts out monologues in her chinese girl voice at every turn about how she's totally not a woman?
And dont even get me started on their comments on Beauty and the Beast:
“There's one isolated princess trying to get someone to marry her, but there are no women doing any other things,” Fought says. “There are no women leading the townspeople to go against the Beast, no women bonding in the tavern together singing drinking songs, women giving each other directions, or women inventing things. Everybody who’s doing anything else, other than finding a husband in the movie, pretty much, is a male.”
...Because it would totally fit the late medieval setting to have women drinking all night in taverns, singing drinking songs loudly, wielding guns and leading crazy hunting parties, right? It may be fantasy, but its partialy historical in its setting. Its like complaining about the lack of plate armored women knights in a King Arthur story.