Radical feminism defines the roots of women's oppression in the fact that women are a sex class, and that the desire to control women's bodies and reproductive systems is the root reason (the radical one) for sex-based oppression.

So everything in that statement fails because it is not based on the correct definition. If feminism redefines women, in general, as something different from members of the female sex class then it stops being feminism. Not sure what it then becomes, perhaps another alphabet movement?, but in any case that kind of feminism couldn't address the treatment of women in so many places like Aftghanistan, say, because the treatment is based on sex, not on some inner feelings about some unicorny concept of gender identity.

The bit about power being some kind of a diffuse thing, later in the creed, comes directly from queer theory, and I suspect that this person is a queer theorist. Queer theory is about queering everything, not about getting justice for anyone, and certainly not for women and girls.