Eh...
Eh, pretty IDPOL, as much as some adherents claim its not. Post-Feminism is better. And also just because something is a construct such as gender doesn't mean it doesn't have good reason for being there.
Also it seems pretty blackpilled (with some serious degree of truth) in that oppression and hierarchies will be inevitable (usually emphasizing male power over women in particular) as long as gender exists (as well as certain individuals who argue) alongside sex. And that oppression and unjust hierarchies are inevitable due to both cultural and biological factors and thus must be removed in order to stop said oppression. Which is kinda doomer. But I do think there is a lot of truth to it (if they started understanding it more often thana not oppresses us ALL pretty much equally at least in the first-world, not just women) however like other ideologies that seek to destroy characteristics once seen as vital for the majority of our human history such as anti-natalism, while there is rightfully just arguments that could be made on why certain natural human biological and psychological behaviors are naturally unjust, and which forces individuals into roles without consent, to want to say for example: ban sex and reproduction to prevent said oppression is pretty much a pipe-dream and pretty irrational practically speaking. And I honestly think trying to "abolish" gender lest we become post-humanists is pretty much infeasible to be realistically implemented on any long-term society, let alone all of humanity.
Oh and why was it considered "post-left" I think people might be projecting their own personal political views and biases onto this a bit here rather than what xenofems usually advocate for.