Well this all seems a bit disagreeable. At the risk of unfairly reducing the arguments to absurdity, here is what I took from this article:
It starts with: "I don't mind wearing the bikini, therefore my argument is going to be more right about the bikini than those who didn't wear it."
The next point is: "human trafficking and sexual slavery exist, so therefore we can ignore this first world problem of objectifying women and potentially fetishing sexual slavery."
Then the next is "Han is captured in carbonite, how come no one is complaining about that? JK, but seriously."
[to answer the rhetorical joke question: because he wasn't wearing a metal thong at the time?]
Princess Leia is a badass and fairly subversive of the stereotype, with or without the damn bikini, but I can't see it as anything other than an excuse for some good old fashioned fanservice for the benefit of male viewers - I can't imagine George Lucas was terribly interested in what women might incidentally take away from it.
Also, it's not censorship for a child orientated company that is still making movies to want to step away from 80s era fanservice, or to stop making that sort of merchandise. Wear it all you like if you want, but the phrase "counterfeit feminists" takes the cake. Are we going to pretend legitimate feminists can't dislike the bikini? Hell, Carrie Fisher dislikes the bikini.