The idea that Antarctica has to be inaccessible under FET is a weird thing that so many REers insist on criticising even when it's a totally unnecessary part of a model. Honestly I blame that for why it's stuck around so much; people end up needing to invest so much time and energy into defending it from some of the bad arguments levelled against it that it's psychologically near-impossible to recognise the valid objections in among the messes.
The classic FET response would be twofold; there are two entities being confused here. One is the edge of the Earth, the ice wall, the icy limit of where it is we can go. The second is an icy landmass chosen to put stations on, perhaps simply because it's believed to be the Antarctica referred to by RET, or perhaps out of an active attempt to mislead. That can be crossed, circumnavigated, etc etc, no problem. The only thing that's really testable is the magnetic south pole, which isn't even claimed to be on the land itself. The former is the 'actual' South Pole, the latter is merely what RET claims is such.
Then there are those like me that see no reason to suppose both poles cannot exist as distinct points on a flat world.