No, it's not.
Kwan actually addresses this in a later podcast episode, that the Comeliness stat was introduced in Unearthed Arcana before being included in Oriental Adventures (he wasn't aware of this when first making the criticism). He sticks to his critique, as he doesn't see why a Comeliness stat needed to be included in OA at all . . . and that regardless of author intent, it comes across as racist to Asian Americans. He specifically points out multiple times in his podcast series that he isn't critiquing Oriental Adventures from the point-of-view of the author, or with any knowledge of authorial intent, but rather as an Asian American reacting to the tropes and stereotypes in the book. He also points out that, while he IS a D&D gamer and part of our hobby, he isn't an encyclopedic expert on the game's history . . . . and that you shouldn't have to be to have a problem with Oriental Adventures or any other book.
His argument isn't "tripe" or wrong or unsupported by the facts . . . it's an honest reaction of an Asian American (actually, several) upon reading through a book problematically titled Oriental Adventures.
...because of course he does!
See, here's the issue that I keep seeing. As part of the process of attempting to understand, you need to actually .... understand. Instead of just constantly doubling down.
"Wait, I'm wrong about this? Well, instead of acknowledging that I'm wrong and adjusting my overall thesis, I am going to explain how being wrong can in no way impact what I am saying."
This is incredibly disheartening, because it just keeps showing that absolutely no understanding can be had about these types of issues, because all that matters is the nature of the offense taken (which will always be personal) and even if there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the offense, according to this theory of offense, even when you're wrong, you are right.
In the late '90s, I was out for cocktails with a groups of friends (yes, there was cocktail culture before now ... we even had this thing called 'the internet' and a website on 'hotwired' with cocktails); at a bar, one of my friends ordered a Negroni. The bartender, who was white (because of course), tried to lecture my friend about the inappropriateness of the drink because of the offense caused, having no idea what the drink was ... or, to use your terms, the bartender wasn't an encyclopedic expert on cocktail history.
The moral of the story, of course, is that the 90s were a wasteland outside of a few areas when bartenders still couldn't make a decent cocktail. No, wait, that's not it.....
Facts should matter. Context matters. Knowledge matters. For someone to say, "It doesn't matter that I was wrong and ignorant about something .... my lack of knowledge allows me to feel offense over this, and will not be corrected," shouldn't be acceptable. At that point, how can you even discuss anything?
This, to me, is worse than anything else. "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." There are many valid criticisms to be had about OA, but comeliness isn't one of them.