No, simply wrong. You are trying to make too high of a standard. If you want to say that then you could deny that any fossil is transitional since there is no way to tell if any individual fossil had any progeny.<quoted text>
What they are saying is they think Java man is not a direct ancestor of modern humans, but another “group”. Whereas a transitional fossil is supposedly a fossil that exhibits traits of groups from which it came from and to what it became. Which if it is from another group, it is not a transitional.
The fact that they are the same species is more than close enough. In some cases species that may or may not have been on the direct line are still considered "transitional" as long as they are "close enough" to being between two other recognizable species.
For example we are not sure that tiktaalik was on any direct line. It is close enough to pure fish and pure land animals to be considered a transitional.