This is a criticism of the article, no one should be offended by it. Criticism is a tool for archiving the truth.

The DSM-5 is just a kind of definition. We define Dyscalculia as a specific learning disorder.
Thats in itself isn't a factuall point.

number-based information because their brain doesn’t
process math-related concepts in the same way as
those without the disorder

The link is a 404.
Anyway. If we assume that the brain processes math-related concepts somehow (!) different, we have a lots of implication.
First, the brain works in a way that it can process math-related concepts different but all other informations normal.
Secondly, there are a neurological basis which differentiate between mathematical and other realms of thinking, lets say linguistics.
Thirdly, if the add the assumption that this "math-related reasoning" is locelated somewhere in the brain, we could find a "mathematical area" just like the "Wernicke's area".
Fourthly, you could develop a test for dyscalculia based on biomarkers.

People with dyscalculia often struggle with transitive inference—a form of deductive reasoning used to derive a relation between items

But not with spatial tasks?
I would expact that transitive inferences could be more linguistic and spatial taks need to be done mathematically.

They may also have trouble keeping track of time

This is reminiscent of Kant on arithmetic...

a child with dyslexia is 100 times more likely to be diagnosed and given support than a child with dyscalculia.

It's a shame...

While acknowledging that being able to label learning disorders is necessary for allocating resources to students, Ansari says it’s important to think about them as a continuum.

Doesn't this view (at least in a naive interpretation) implies that the theory of a general factor of intelligence, the g, are false?

Morsanyi points out that children typically learn to read within a few months, and once they have, that skill is mastered.

While this is true, the art of understanding a text, got the intention of the author, "read between the lines", are more rare.
Some people got a nearly natural feeling about words and their meaning. Other not.

The largest study to date, which included 1,303 children, points toward number blindness as the cause.

Interesting, if this ability is connected to the faculty to make transitiv inferences.

But over the past five to 10 years, researchers have started to focus on how these numerical systems interact with domain-general cognitive skills, cognitive abilities that are not specific to math, such as executive function and memory.

If these different branches are highly interconnected, doesn't that contradict the above statements that there is a specific problem with math?

Yay! I have that!

Same! I also have dyslexia! I hate it!

That sucks.. I kind of like my dyscalculia.. I don't know why but I agree with my brain's idea that numbers are not real.. it just feels right

This is a criticism of the article, no one should be offended by it. Criticism is a tool for archiving the truth.

The DSM-5 is just a kind of definition. We define Dyscalculia as a specific learning disorder. Thats in itself isn't a factuall point.

The link is a 404. Anyway. If we assume that the brain processes math-related concepts somehow (!) different, we have a lots of implication. First, the brain works in a way that it can process math-related concepts different but all other informations normal. Secondly, there are a neurological basis which differentiate between mathematical and other realms of thinking, lets say linguistics. Thirdly, if the add the assumption that this "math-related reasoning" is locelated somewhere in the brain, we could find a "mathematical area" just like the "Wernicke's area". Fourthly, you could develop a test for dyscalculia based on biomarkers.

But not with spatial tasks? I would expact that transitive inferences could be more linguistic and spatial taks need to be done mathematically.

This is reminiscent of Kant on arithmetic...

It's a shame...

Doesn't this view (at least in a naive interpretation) implies that the theory of a general factor of intelligence, the g, are false?

While this is true, the art of understanding a text, got the intention of the author, "read between the lines", are more rare. Some people got a nearly natural feeling about words and their meaning. Other not.

Interesting, if this ability is connected to the faculty to make transitiv inferences.

If these different branches are highly interconnected, doesn't that contradict the above statements that there is a specific problem with math?