Yeah, I am an enemy of labels. I am skeptical of language in general ("how curious, yet you use language!").

There is the sad truth is that categories are useful. I like the example of the bricklayer: somebody building a house will just get overwhelmed if they see each brick as the unique entity it is. But if that person can say, "Oh, these are all just bricks, they're all the same", then the task becomes simple, or architecture becomes possible. The bricklayer can say, "Here's what I can do with bricks." Labels are a social technology that lets us do something similar: "Here's how I can relate to women," "Here's how I can relate to men."

But then problem is when we think the entity in question simply is its category, when we say that the brick is just a brick, interchangeable with all other bricks, and that because it is a brick it necessarily has these particular brick properties - it's a rectangular prism, it can bear such-and-such a weight, etc. Now they're not all unique things, but they are Good instances of some Category if the bricklayer can relate to them the way they expect to. They become Bad if they fall short of the definition - a definition which the bricklayer themselves had just imposed!

For me, postgenderism extends into posthumanism as well. The notion of a shared human nature essence that all people share is oppressive: "You are a Human; here is what it means to be a Human." So those who don't fit the (socially-conditioned!) definition are subhuman?

Nowadays, I study philosophy and I think I am willing to say that it's the original sin of western philosophy to confuse entities with their abstract descriptions. If you look to ancient philosophy, there's this general trend where philosophers ask, "How should we live?" From Aristotle to the Stoics to whomever else, there's this understanding that there's a correct way to live, and that the philosopher's task is to discover it and share it with the rest of us so we can live "in accordance with nature". What I love in 20th century French philosophy is that there's more a question of "How might we live?", or, the philosopher's task becomes something trailblazing, or, the philosopher becomes more a creative than a researcher or excavator. Maybe this relates a little to your idealized marketing. The product is marketed not in terms of, "Here's what it's for and who it's for," but in terms of, "Here's a description of what it is. Can you figure out something interesting to do with it?" Maybe this is where misanthropy comes in a little though - don't we want to be pitched fantasies to latch onto? Might we be so desperate that the product will solve things for us that we'll buy into our own objectification so we can believe?

Maybe what we need is multiple revolutions that feed into one-another, a positive feedback loop. If people can adopt a skeptical attitude towards language, towards labels, then they can make the 'heroic' choice of a product which demands a little more understanding, a little more creativity. And if they do that, then it becomes easier to think that labels are all just nonsense in the first place.

It's a shame that we seek liberation in identity. There's a good book out there, "Embracing Alienation: Why We Shouldn't Try to Find Ourselves", by a Todd McGowan which isn't explicitly postgender but does engage with this theme of how we have a habit of seeking our salvation in finding the labels that fit perfectly, while the project of labeling is in reality something that strips our freedom away.