I'm saying that specifically his "the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent" is too vague, and it's very unlikely he meant that the inability to understand consent would automatically exclude someone from all responsibility

That's what he said. Despite having had ample opportunity, he hasn't claimed that he's been misinterpreted on that point.

Note that the literal interpretation would not justify Valerie Aurora's description either.

Going back to Ted:

Now, actually, the way the law works is that not only does the being raped be not able to give consent, but that the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent

and Valerie:

Theodore Y. Ts’o wrote that rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough

If both parties are sufficiently drunk that they are unable to know that the other person was not able to give legal consent, a straightforward reading of Ted's claim is that it's not rape. The literal interpretation precisely matches Valerie's description.

That a drunk enough person could freely rape anyone without legal consequences is ridiculous enough that it's unlikely he'd really mean to say that.

It's exactly as ridiculous to claim that it's not rape purely because both parties were too drunk to realise that neither could grant consent.

Interpreting it that way would make the logical structure of his post inconsistent. If he meant such a general principle, why would he only apply it to a case with both drunk? And other similar issues.

Where is he only applying it to a case where both parties are drunk? He uses various examples to lead to his conclusion, which is that if you're drunk enough that you can't tell whether someone's given consent, you can't commit rape. It's a single thought experiment, not a series of them. The symmetrical case merely informs the asymmetrical one.

Interpreting it that way would conflict with his other views on alcohol use. Given his other views, it does not look plausible he'd say something like "you were drunk at the time, so it's not your fault".

He doesn't say it's ok. He just says it's not rape. There's no conflict with his other views on alcohol consumption.