His knowledge of biology is a little screwy, but he basically says that understood from the perspective of what the semen is trying to do (replicate the man) a female child is not the desired end. That is only offensive if you think that semen is sentient, and therefore misogynist. He goes on to say that understood from the perspective of nature the female offspring is desirable and natural. He also says that nature is from God. I understand why one might be offended, but it is not really offensive to women and it certainly does not mean women are deficient- unless you would rather identify with semen than with God.
Later quotes from the page likewise display that he did not have a full understanding of the biology of reproduction. But generally he says that in procreation, the man’s part is active and the woman’s passive. That sounds flawed, and perhaps offensive. But you have to at least acknowledge that it is not baseless. The semen is active, the egg passive.
Even the weird quote about monsters is not totally without redeeming value. He thinks that women are an accident of nature. But he says that they would not be here if God did not desire it. I would rather be here because God want me here than as a biological necessity (though in fact, both are true). Actually, it is complimentary. He is basically saying that every female is a miracle.
In any event, he was not infallible. He made mistakes. You can choose to interpret his writings here loosely, or you can reject them outright. The Church does not teach, and has never taught, that women are inferior.
