I think Chomsky's position on this issue is basically right - there is a novel combinatorial system primarily geared towards thought/meaning, which then is parasitic on sensory-motor systems for communication. Those recruited SM systems for language are naturally a species of lower-level SM.

Recursive combinatorial structure that is oriented around semantics, using atoms that are not determined by sensory-motor properties.

Language in the broad sense is a coalition of cognitive systems, including one which is combinatorial and primarily related to semantics, and one which is a sensory-motor control system. So it's not right to say that language is a sensory-motor control system.

My biggest complaint with the claim "language is a 'species' of sensorimotor control architecture" is that certain aspects of language have nothing whatsoever to do with sensorimotor control, and were not actually modifications of a SM system, and so this statement is, in the strict sense, false.

I don’t think the two cases are the same. It’s like saying that chimpanzees are monkeys. It’s not true, but more true than saying that chimpanzees are canines. I think I was generous in my initial response; a more loquacious answer is that language recruits and builds on sensory-motor circuits.

The “is” is doing a lot of work here. Language recycles and builds upon sensorimotor architectures but also has different, seemingly discontinuous properties.

Yes but no

The higher one climbs the ranks of academia, the greater the responsibility. But, we need a broader movement/concerted joint effort to make change, not decisions by individuals.

I believe that more clear discouragement of joining editorial boards, submitting and publishing in journals like this is necessary.