Actually, I heard all of yours. I got them, believe me.
So "being a man/woman" is nothing-in-particular (i.e. having no essential characteristics; non-essentializable).essentialism is nothing more than a ball and chain, by which we organise our prejudices.
That means you can't believe rationally in transgender rights. Because "transgender rights" are rights to nothing-in-particular, according to you. A man who wants to be a "woman" or a woman who wants to be a "man" is wanting nothing, essentially -- nothing that can be specified.
I've got it, alright: but I doubt you've thought through your own view. It clashes with other claims you've made, such as that it's "prejudiced" to say one thing or the other about that. A person cannot be "prejudiced" about a "nothing."
But I'd rather hear from someone who has thought through their view rationally.