There is a lot of thoughtful and insightful content in this article about how to approach the issue, but the above is simultaneously postmodern and actively counterproductive (as I find almost all postmodern thought to be in practice).

The reason is that it doesn't give us appropriate insight into why some categories are more useful than others. Very often, the utility derives precisely because the categorization reflects an objective and substantial difference between the things being talked about.

Because the topic of gender is in large part at least implicitly about to what extent gender is not just objectively decidable by appeal to social convention, but also sculpted by biology, obscuring the objective side of things to focus on convention makes it harder not easier to understand major portions of the conflict.

If someone says, "trans women are not women", and you ask them to unpack it, assuming you don't just terminate in a visceral antipathy and rationalization of why antipathy is appropriate (which is the most common outcome AFAICT), you end up squarely in questions about not our ability to draw category boundaries wherever we please, but about whether or not there is an objective regularity here for which utility demands linguistic support in categorization. It is the objective regularity, not an abstract sense of being "more useful", that is at issue.

That this is critical, and that its criticality is recognized, is nowhere more evident than in the claims of some trans advocates that "sex is a spectrum".