It's worth pointing out just how baseless and crippling this suggestion is. It's akin to saying "some prominent individuals have suggested drinking bleach to cure Covid" in its propensity to cause disaster if the suggestion is taken seriously.

The idea that bleach will denature your proteins, that you have proteins, that you don't want the proteins in your throat and stomach denatured, and so on, are not expressions of patriarchal subjectivity.

It is useful to insist that objectivity approaches what it aspires to be; standpoint theory can alert us to when we might not be noticing that a particular perspective is leading us to declare objective something that is not.

That is, standpoint theory is useful for conventional epistemology, including epistemology of science. "Gosh, I forgot to / pretended I didn't have to think about that!" is not the same as "the fundamental conception of how to gather knowledge is broken".

You don't need to deconstruct patriarchy any more than you do or don't need to deconstruct our propensity to favor visual stimuli over tactile ones.

You might need to deconstruct the patriarchy to get NIH funding apportioned in ways that better serve all humans, but you don't need to deconstruct patriarchy to understand the establishment of polarity in zygotes or whether guizhi fuling wan is an effective (herbal) treatment for cervical cancer.

Whenever one describes a perspective whose natural endpoint is a return to superstition and ignorance, it's appropriate to give some guidance as to how to avoid that endpoint. Elisabeth Lloyd, for instance, has provided such guidance without averring feminist philosophy entirely. Your discussion here doesn't particularly, however.