Yes, but what I think fajrdrako is saying is that the definition of slash as put forward in this post is not the one in common use these days, and that's significant to this discussion. Those labelling a non-fannish work with a canonical gay relationship as slash are obviously not using the outmoded definition that specifies slash be non-canonical.

Furthermore, after seeing discussion on both sides of this debate yesterday, I suspect there's more than a little working at cross-purposes here. An author doesn't wish her work to be labelled slash because she's stated she feels it's Othering. Fans of the work wish to label it slash because they feel it's encompassing, and the denial of the label is, once more, Othering us. "Lady authoress" on the one side, "unnatural women" on the other. None of the fans mean to insult the author or the work with the label (I can't speak for the reviewers using the label, and it's possible they're using it with an incomplete understanding what it actually means), rather it's a way of recommending the work to each other as being inclusive of their (our) viewpoint (I've hesitated to use "our," because I haven't read the work, so I don't know if I'd consider it slash).

And I'll note here that one reason it's not considered Othering by fans to label a work slash is because there's a separate fannish label for the same story type featuring an opposite-sex relationship: het.