Seems to me that she might have a point, although tbh I can't get past the language to work out what it might be.
What is the proposition that is "bollocks"?
The social hierarchy we have is mostly ordered by wealth, though in academia the tendency is to order by education, supposedly corresponding to intelligence - although that is not very well defined.
Are "intelligent" people intrinsically any better or more deserving, eg. in terms of education, than others?
People supposedly less intelligent can be marginalised, silenced or exploited - justifications of racism and slavery often started by claiming that some peoples were less "intelligent" than others. We know that they weren't but even if it had been true, exploitation would not have been justified.
Part of the reason it's bollocks is because of the problem you have with the language. For something trying to make a point about 'intelligence' being exclusionary, it's written in a deliberately exclusionary manner. It's an example of itself that then means that any real point is wasted.
There are lots of valid questions about how we think of intelligence as regards whether some of it is a cultural bias - Stephen Jay Gould wrote an excellent book on it called The Mismeasure of Man. It concentrates on IQ tests but the pounts it makes are wider. It's powerful, clear, and easy to read. It doesn't though end up with no idea of intelligence which the screed here does but argues that it's easy to miss the bias in cultural knowledge.
What is linked to in the OP is an example, imo, of the vacuously idiotic idea that all opinions and ideas are equally valid because we have no method to determine any difference. It's where a lot of modern thought seems to be based on a reading of the problem of hard solipsism that says the only truth is subjective truth, which is an oxymoron.
Bad enough that the thinking is quite this worthless but to then dress it up in the faux finery of the worst obscurantist academic writing is laughable, which is why it's beyond parody.
