>So basically she wanted the same loony stuff trannies do like "the end of sex distinction"
Yes. Do realize that this is the end game of the loony stuff that GNC people do too. You blur gender roles, you abolish them, and then you abolish sex roles, which can only happen by abolishing sex. GNC women for example, are not happy with femininity being pushed on them, they're not happy with it as a concept either, and, assuming we lived in a genderless world, they would not be happy with being at such a biological disadvantage due to the burden of reproduction of our species.
The distinction is in the path that this process could take and your optimism. Of course, there are many other ways to see things, but this is far from the craziest one.
Trans is only reinforcing gender roles, because instead of being GNC men and women, they claim that they have to be the opposite sex to access the opposite sex's gender roles. Another problem is that they want those roles to keep existing, because their identity depends on them. Yet another problem is that because they use hormones, they are in reality transexual. They do not acknowledge their biological transitioning, nor are they doing it to achieve a 'body type'. They're doing it to achieve the look of the other sex as much as they can, because only the other sex can have X gender roles in their (and society's) mind. This is quite regressive, and rather than leading to the end of sex distinction, or even the end of gender distinction, it leads to the idea that a male can become female through surgery, hormone treatment, and gender roles and vice versa. This is still within a world with males and females. They must exist, otherwise there's nothing to transition from and to, so it's not a path to the end of sex.
How much optimism you have in this ever happening, or the way in which you envision it happening if you see it as possible, is another matter. If we achieve the technology needed to outsource reproduction, it's unlikely that it'll be used to further women's goals, and especially every woman's goals. The most likely outcome is that it'll a commodity for certain rich women, or for certain rich men that would use it in evil ways (like Epstein's idea). If it became accessible to every woman, it's very likely that men wouldn't leave women alone anyway. They 'need' us for more than birthing kids. They also want us to let them fuck us, to cook for them, to clean for them, etc. If all of the previous could be outsourced? Then they would likely still look for the 'real thing' when they got bored.
Being freed from only the burden of reproduction wouldn't be enough then. Sex would have to disappear for final 'peace'; in her view, that is. Some thought only maleness would have to disappear, but how, when they have the power? Some think we're doomed forever, others that women should just separate (not a long term solution), and we're seeing how attempts at reformation of the male sex is going. So in reality transcending sex is a hopeful, long term, technically achievable* solution.
*If progress was linear. You need other sorts of social advances and global stability. There is also the question of whether, if it were possible, men would want to transcend sex at all rather than just be immortal men.
>Plus, how can you claim to be a feminist at the same time you have so much despise for childbirth and pregnancy, when this is our natural biological roles in reproduction?
She didn't despise it, she was realistic about it, and I wish more women were too. Imagine we lived in a world with no men, only women, and we reproduced through parthenogenesis, but still had to birth them of course. Do you think, when the technology was sustainably achieved, that the women in this world would not want to use it to free themselves of a hard, painful and often deathly nine month process with irreversible body changes? Really? Why, because we are one with nature? We don't need to reject our human gift of intelligence, you could sustainably achieve progress, it's men that are unable to do this, not us