Exactly my thoughts.
Some pros do have the latest gear simply because they are given/lent the newest gear for testing purposes. They may even be allowed to keep them. Some like to have the latest gear just like many amateurs.
Well his post was completely wrong on both ends. There are plenty of pros who also shoot for personal use and then there are plenty of amateurs (like me) who take photos for other people to see. Thinking that there is only one shared goal for millions of people you have never met is pretty narrow minded.
Is a "pro" someone who works full time and earns his living entirely by his/her professional photography work? Or is a pro somebody who works part time at it while having another job? If it's the latter what if they haven't been hired in a month? 6 months? 2 years? are they still a pro?
I can think of probably 10 things that matter more to the average photo shoot client than sharpness. Hell I never pixel peeped my own wedding photos. You are projecting your values onto everyone and by extension showing how little you understand the average person
Don't sell yourself short. I once shot a Sports Illustrated cover, using a Sony A55V and an old Minolta 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 short zoom. Even for the time this was not up-to-date bleeding edge gear.
Ah, so your definition of "pro" is someone who works for an amateur consumer of photography—say, a bride or a family—while ignoring the many professionals who consume photography as part of their work. You think "mom at a wedding," I think "editor at Sports Illustrated." See how that works? I project, you project. That’s how these conversations usually go: people argue from their own example in their mind without ever actually defining the terms.
Once upon a time you pretty much had to be a pro (ie somebody who would make a return off spendy cameras) to justify the high cost of high end gear. There were exceptions but it was true enough to shape definitions of "pro". As things have changed i don't like that definition so if i had to offer one, it would be based on skill.
I wonder if he doesn't mean resolution or detail when he says sharpness. In that respect it's one reason why some of the most serious pros choose medium format as both the lenses and sensors are superior in how much detail you capture. I doubt many of those guys oversharpen their photos but they do care about how much detail they capture, i doubt it has changed much today.
It’s a bit like the difference between a professional mechanic working on customer cars full-time and an amateur who enjoys working on his own projects when he feels like it. The professional delivers consistent results at a standardized level of quality every time, all the time. The amateur, on the other hand, works on their own terms, with no obligation to meet deadlines or standards beyond their own.
Exactly. Standards have moved.
He doesn't take into account Gear Lust & aspirational purchases where people buy in to the dream. He makes some common-sense points though, but also some that aren't always true. From his own (unnamed) survey it seems a good deal of pros are using mirrorless. This can be considered impressive given the relative newness of the technology, but his interpretation is that a good chunk are using DSLRs. I guess a good chunk still are, but it's not the majority, which kind of goes against the point he is trying to make. DSLR users are shrinking for valid, rational reasons, despite a lot of second-hand DSLRs being absolute bargains today.
you are so correct. ive been a shooting pro for 17 years and own a fully kitted studio, car park area change room seating area, multiple sets of everything just for backup, money is good when actually shooting , but last year the fugures dropped of by 50%
and everyone wants to make commisions off MY images and then pay me less. i use quality cameras and cheap lighting gear 
I understand where your thinking comes from but believe it or not what you're referring to isn't really new, but goes back almost 3 decades.
But did he create a false premise, regrdless of intent?
Yes.
