A short critical piece arguing that two Genesis verses are later editorial insertions, not original divine speech to Adam and Eve:
Genesis 3:16 (painful childbirth as Eve's curse) makes no sense addressed to Eve, who has never been pregnant,  but makes perfect sense as a later explanation ancient readers used to justify observed female suffering as divine punishment.
Genesis 2:24 ("a man leaves his father and mother...") is a narrator's aside referencing family households, but Adam and Eve have no parents or households, so the verse reflects the concerns of a later patriarchal society, not the Garden narrative.
The author argues both verses "serve the reader, not the character," revealing a seam where later editors embedded their society's norms (justifying female suffering and patriarchal marriage) into the creation story to make them look like eternal divine design rather than historically contingent human arrangements.
He's careful to note this shows insertion happened, not proof of specific motives and frames the piece as an argument for reading the Bible through mainstream historical-critical scholarship (multi-author, edited over centuries) rather than as unified, infallible revelation.