The Damsel in Distress is only problematic if females are only depicted as damsels. Nothing wrong with damsels existing; I've known a few in my day. Women, like men, come in limitless variety.
Anyhow, there are other ways to read that basic story template. When you read it through the lens of critical theory, sure, it looks a certain way. But that's only one reading, one pespective, and ignores, for instance, mythological archetypes. My sense from engaging in these conversations is that most of those who interpret D&D tropes in a negative light are doing so solely from a particular lens, that of critical theory and its offspring. There are other meta-analytic perspectives to take that yield different interpretations (e.g. Jungian/Campbellian), or integral theory (e.g. Ken Wilber).
D&D, as a game, doesn't need to either embody critical theory ideas, nor mythic archetypes. It is a game, for fun, and it could be a fun campaign to rescue a damsel (or a dude).
I see you didn't read the story template very closely. Or, you find the myths of female disempowerment to be fine in the modern day.
For example, did you note that the end of the adventure involves the princess marrying one of the heroes? She didn't agree to that (implied by the fact it is one sentence which includes us being told she is kidnapped) so she is supposed to be just fine marrying the hero that rescued her?
And, why is it that the monster wants to marry her? In many myths it is simple. She is beautiful, therefore everyone wants to marry her. And she, as a woman, has no agency and will marry the good hero and not the ugly monster.
I'm sure Jung could have a very thorough psychological analysis of what this story says about the human condition. I'm also sure that my sister would call it a load of [insert your favorite expletives here] and not accept the princess being a gilded trophy being passed around.
And things you can do with that story, such as have the princess be unwilling to marry, are generally constructed as twists... but since they are more realistic in our modern society, presenting that as a twist "surprise, this woman doesn't want to marry a dude she literally just met" falls flat.
Now, I'm not saying that no character should ever be kidnapped or disempowered, sure, that can happen. But, taken as a whole, while a myth and story that survived for hundreds of years, it isn't something I think we really want at the table.
Because one of the best parts of D&D is that it is a toolbox game: we get to create our own version of it. And because the history is interesting - the mythic roots, Tolkien's influence, Gygax's prototype, all the way up to the Mercer stuff.
Jazz isn't just what's happening now in Tokyo and Paris. It is Miles Davis and Billie Holiday and Louis Armstrong; it is also early blues and slave songs and traditional African music. It is a tradition, with many branches and a historical development.
But, sure, some people just want to play the game. But why not provide a game that offers a variety of options?
You seem to be missing the point.
Sure, the history is interesting. But if I by a Jazz CD by (googles) Joel Ross I don't really want a dissertation on how his sound was influenced by Billie Holiday. I want to listen to a CD by Joel Ross.
If I want to play DnD with orcs, I don't want to read about how Tolkien took and adapted the idea of ogres into orcs and what he based them on. I want to play DnD with orcs. And, while a "variety of options" sounds good. Options that include racist undertones and implications of sexual violence (with regards to half-orcs) aren't the kind of options I want presented in the game. They've existed for decades, I'm sure it was fun, but lets move on and do something else.
