I'm really struggling with her ideas. In theory, I can see where she's coming from, but I'm unsure how they would practically work.
For example, she states it's unfair that women with children take up priority in refugees or homeless spaces over childless women. I'm unsure what we could do to rectify this? One home available and two homeless women - the only difference between them being one has a child and one doesn't, who should take the house? Surely, when we have limited resources, those resources have to be given to the most vulnerable. Would she suggest that the childless woman take the homeless space while the mother and her child stayed in the streets instead? Until we have equal resources for everyone, not prioritising is impossible. 
She also thinks that women should stop breeding and instead focus on creating a better more equal society. Again, good in theory, but wouldn't the human race die out if everybody did that? Does she mean that we should reduce the birth rate until this better society has been realised?
She recognised that lesbians and heterosexuals and bisexuals exist, and feel sexual atttaction, but rejects the language of "sexual orientation". She positions herself as "against heterosexuality" and feels women should resist it.
I'm not a radfem, and apparently these are basic rad fem ideas, she says.
Any thoughts and/or help understanding? Pointers in the right direction.