The thing is, if you are arguing that it is just, right, true, sense for women to have equality of personhood, equality of dignity, with men, that isn't a statement that can depend on the existence of a technological way to (seemingly) achieve that.
By inserting that possibility into your thinking about the nature of that equality at the level of principle, you end up saying, women are only in truth equal to men if they become less like women, biologically, and more like men.
When that is the beginning of your political program it will always veer away from actually valuing women in their reproductive role. And that's what we see, not just in the hook up sex market, but also in the way we deal with work and motherhood and education and social care.
It's also incredibly fragile, as any place or time where there is not these tech innovations on the table you are reduced to saying that there is no possible way to be women who are valued equally as themselves compared to men.
Part of the problem I think is a tendency in the west to see things soley through the lens of freedom. And in this case it's being seen in terms of, freedom from our bodies. So freedom from the different problems that women face compared to men becomes analogous with being free from our female body and its functions.
That's been a powerful idea that has gone much farther than just politics around women, it's seen in all forms of transhumanism, in the kind of environmentalism that thinks that we can use tech to find ways to consume without the consequences of bad effects, among other things.
People always seem to jump to this idea that questioning the prominence of reproductive tech in feminism just means rejecting it altogether. What I'd suggest is that it may or may not mean that but that it certainly isn't an adaquate basis to build any kind of women's movement and stifles any such project.