Yes. I think I copied this from MN, but perhaps from elsewhere, but it is directly relevant here:
As the philosopher Clare Chambers warns, “If a category is removed before the oppression that creates it, the oppression stays in place but the ability to describe it is lost.” This is only a problem for members of the oppressed class, though. For everyone else, it’s simply a title change.
And this is my main feminist reason for opposing gender identity as a secular religion. It erases the name for basis of one of the main axes of exploitation (sex, race, and class), but does not care about erasing that exploitation at all.
My personal reason for opposing the gender identity as a secular religion is not only that I am not a believer, but that it imposes an identity I do not possess on me ('cis') and suggests that being a woman is now a category based on sexist stereotypes or demeaning porn-influenced views of what some male people think being a woman is.
I understand the desire to escape that by becoming 'nonbinary', but it won't work, because the mistreatment of women and girls is based on sex and nonbinary people are still either male or female; the latter just want a private contract with patriarchy to exlude them from the general contempt towards female people, at the cost of the rest of us.