1) After responding to your content, I think it is appropriate to "interpret" (i.e., sense, feel, empirically observe my experience concerning) your communication; which is an unavoidable part of human interaction. You can stipulate that I not share that result, but it's going to happen. My argument on your approach using the evidence of your content remains.
2) Jordan Peterson does utilize and cite Biblical scholarship haphazardly; hence the comparison. Certainly brilliant, nonetheless.
3) The interpretation of Onesimus is a *possibility*; one that has been thrown around a lot before but has never been given much credence (even by the progressive scholars who share criticism of Christian tradition). The name alluding to the sex-slave identity is much less "likely" than many other possibilities that have been considered; even from early theologians who had a common language as the text in question and a much closer affiliation with the cultural situation that carries much more weight than a English interpretation of a Greek name-identifier (and, as it happens, gives a much fuller picture of the sexual connections with the Philemon narrative).
Propose the theories, speculate on the possibilities, but that is an interpretive jump that just isn't necessary. And the overarching claim you are reaching for in this particular example has more confirmed merit within the slave-master relationship.
Honestly, I wrote a response just so people who also came to your article (which appears as a very confident claim; "The New Testament is Very Queer" is quite different than, "The NT Might Have Queer Insinuations," or "I Think the NT is Very Queer") and weren't sure how to handle the scholarly cloak.
Disguising anecdotal presuppositions and personal conjecture as scholarly facts is both sordid and manipulative.
If you want to say “I want the Bible to reflect such-and-such modern perspective,” just say that.
If you want to say you read something in the Bible that you are able to transpose into your perspective, then share it while acknowledging the reader-oriented approach you are using that has less to do with the Bible — especially Biblical scholarship — and more to do with your personal needs.
Or, you could come to verifiable conclusions by actually doing scholarship; which could lead to proposing an interpretation that, one must assume, is just an interpretation and not yet a verified theory and especially not a fact.
Whichever you choose is fine. There's not a "right" way to write about or discuss the Bible. Just don’t mix the two approaches (unless you’re trying to ramp up a pre-existing echo chamber or trying to bait readership. Something the evangelical movement and folks like Jordan Peterson have dismally succeeded in doing - this being my opinionated perspective on the matter).
As someone who wants to see your perspective gain serious credence, I wish you would approach the subject in a way that actually makes such an outcome possible.
As this is your piece, you certainly deserve the last word. If you would like further discussion, I will only continue at your invitation.
