This is really just a tirade. She's angry because rational philosophy, essentially, is not "intersectional" enough. We've seen the damage this has done to social science (just look at how well it has solved pre-college education).

The thesis of her tirade, the desert island and taking the "more capable" person, really left a lot of details out. It appears poised to support her argument rather than pose an interesting question. She claims she can find counter-examples, which she never mentions, and then continues on her tirade. This seems like an underhanded way to guilt anyone who might question her.

Here's an example where it becomes more interesting. Suppose you're on a desert island and you have 3 people. You, a disabled person, and an able-bodied person. Which do you choose to take?

Her implication is that you should take the disabled person. But in reality the _rational_ argument can go either way. I'm shocked that she missed this but also unsurprised. That is, rational philosophy is perfectly capable of addressing her argument without the need to inject several new variables that provide no value.

If you need someone to lift heavy things, and the disabled person does not have arms (or use of their arms), do they provide positive utility that enhances your survival? No. I think any rational actor can see this. In this case, it makes sense to take the able-bodied person. Ethically and morally questionable but certainly rational.

If you need someone to distill water, and the disabled person is a scientist, it would make sense to take the disabled person. You can make up for their shortcomings and the net utility is positive for your survival. Again, ethically and morally questionable but certainly rational.

I browsed the author's Google scholar page and am left unimpressed at the quality and depth of her papers. The URL of the website tells me all I need to know. I am unsure what the author is chasing but we can be certain it's not philosophy.