It is vacuous. Choice may or may not be a necessary condition for empowerment but it is surely not a sufficient one. One can choose disempowerment. Further, like a typical conservative, she focuses on the individual and ignores the collective. If I am empowered (whatever that means) at the expense of the disempowerment of others, is this a situation to be happy about? Is it "true empowerment?" Furthermore, like a typical conservative, she ignores that "dreams" arise in a context too: they are shaped and delimited by your circumstances and hence a critical move is necessary, for us to really examine where these impulses come from and what their
Implications are, rather than treating them as properly basic as the author seems to want to.
Really, the whole statement is a variation on your tired screed about how feminists are somehow obliged to let anti-feminists come to the table breaking the supposed "leftist orthodoxy" of feminism and conveniently forestalling the real question: are feminism and conservatism even compatible? Isn't conservatism, after all, in many respects, anti-feminist? You asked me to do some intellectual heavy lifting. So, I ask you: why not try to tackle the real questions here?