The retort to Nikhil's essay certainly made a valid point. Yes, only children can have many opportunities, such as developing independence and strong relationships with adults. And yes, there is research that shows that only children may have better academic performance and higher self-esteem than those with siblings. However, we must take into account the underlying premise of Nikhil's essay, which is that the term "only child" carries a subtle but negative connotation.
It cannot be denied that this term does carry a bit of a stigma and it's understandable for an only child to feel slighted by its use. After all, it implies that having siblings is the 'normal' state of being and implies a sense of inferiority in those without them. To this end, Nikhil's suggestion to dub sibling-folk 'also children' is a clever way to lightheartedly address the issue at hand.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that not all families are able to have more than one child, and that having only one is sometimes a personal choice or a financial necessity. But this should not be used to negate the idea that the term "only child" has negative connotations. UrRong - instead of trying to shut this conversation down, let's acknowledge Nikhil's original essay and make an effort to change the way we talk about those without siblings. After all, only children are just as capable of success as those with siblings - and maybe even more so!