In addition to being infantilizing and repellent, Scrum induces needless anxiety about microfluctuations in one’s own productivity. The violent transparency means that, in theory, each person’s hour-by-hour fluctuations are globally visible– and for no good reason, because there’s absolutely no evidence that any of this snake oil actually makes things get done quicker or better in the long run. For people with anxiety or mood disorders, who generally perform well when measured on average long-term productivity, but who tend to be most sensitive to invasions of privacy, this is outright discriminatory.
The Agilistas and scrumbots will scream that what Church describes is not "real Agile" (the classic no-true-Scotsman defense), but his critique rings true to me.
I am tempted to say that there are some good ideas buried with agile software development, ideas which have been overwhelmed by the methodologization and industrial rollout of Agile and Scrum. However, I am not so sure that the bad does not outweigh the good.
Agile in general (and Scrum in particular) may be a case of people having learned the wrong lessons and then trying to generalize those lessons where they do not apply. I have to wonder if the software development teams for whom agile approaches really work (and don't make significant portions of the team miserable) would probably have been fine regardless of their methodology. However, someone quickly builds something cool, so we look at how they did it, and then want to say "Great! Every team should work like this!" when, in fact, we have no business abstracting those models outside of their specific contexts.