I think that's her point.
Chazal looked at lo ta'aseh chol melachah ("do no kind of work," which one might think is more than clear enough on its own) and said, nope, this pasuk cries "darsheni," and they came up with an incredibly complex interpretation that resulted in the 39 av melachot and the potentiality for the thousands of toledot that arise from them. They themselves admitted, when it came to hilchot shabbat, hakol talui b'chut ha-se'ar (the whole thing hangs by a single hair). But they felt that it was necessary.
Yet these same rabbis look at zachar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah, and they do nothing? These brilliant sages who drashed all our wonderful Shabbos out of the hidden nuances of melachah, and they've got nothing for this other pasuk that has peculiar construction and interesting hermeneutical intertexts and whatnot?
It's strange. And I think Rakhel is indicating-- as many of us in Liberal Judaism movements have done-- that Rabbanan dropped the ball on this. The pesukim are crying "darsheni," and they didn't drash. Maybe they had reasons for this that made sense to them at the time. I don't know.
But it's a problem, now, and needs addressing. When it comes to something puzzling, like, say, why is this animal kosher and that animal treyf, it might be perfectly reasonable to shrug, consign the topic to endless debate in the beit midrash, and never actually move to practically address it: because no one is hurt by keeping kosher. But when we consign the question of the apparent willingness of Chazal to let the pshat ride on these two pesukim to idle debate, gay Jews suffer for it.
If Rabbanan dropped this ball, then it has to be up to us to pick it up. But the option to let the matter lie and allow people to suffer just because of how they were created is no option at all.
