Ergo, that sentence sounds like someone is asking not to be boxed in by their gender.
Why is that not something you can support?
If you pay close attention, most of the cultural debate over gender identity issues relates not to eliding distinctions and expectations, but to reshaping the boundaries and expectations of those identities.
It's easier to see what I mean by this with the debate over racism and affirmative action. In the U.S. most white people think equality means being "color blind"--so blind that some refuse to even admit that non-overt racism is possible. In truth civil rights in the U.S. has never been about eliding or ignoring [racial] distinctions, but changing expectations. As long as power differentials exist (and they will always exist), these expectations will matter and will constantly shift.
Another way to look at it is that any identity is by definition exclusive. And identities only matter because they imply a default set of expectations. If you say that people should be literally free to choose their identity, you're allowing people to freely reinterpret and redefine the implied expectations and shared _meaning_ of that identity, which can be injurious to those who previously chose that identity. There's an inherent conflict, there. It's why as a white male I can't go around identifying as a black female, certainly not without making substantial changes to my behavior and perhaps even physical appearance, changes that should be consonant with what being a "black female" means. To do otherwise would be another kind of violence.
You can't really understand any of these issues without understanding and appreciating the genesis--power. It's all about power over others. We can never have a society without power differentials because that would imply the power to _refuse_ to recognize the identities others have chosen for themselves. Power matters not because it's per se evil, but how it's used and how it's distributed and what are the concrete results in people's lives.
In adjudicating conflicts over what the expectations for an identity are, one must take into account how power is used and abused and by whom. For example, it's legitimately problematic for a man to argue that transgender women shouldn't be allowed in women's bathrooms because of the threat of violence. It's problematic because it's another instance of a man making decisions about what it means to be a women, and men have historically abused their social and economic positions when drawing these boundaries to disadvantage women more generally. The logic of the argument is secondary to the power politics, because fundamentally it's really about the power politics. It's more legitimate for women to make that argument, and in so much as they do make it it carries more weight (notwithstanding that women as a group are certainly capable of abusing their relative powers), but in actuality they've been less vociferous about it.
The line of thinking that says power differentials are inherently wrong and/or that we should elide the implications of identities are inconsistent. If only things were so simple....
Identity is by definition a set of expectations. To lose those expectations is to lose a facet of identity.
There's a group of people who want to remove that facet of their identity, cool, I support them. But I like that facet of my identity, and I like the fact that most people around me also express that facet of their identity. I don't want want to be genderless or to live in a genderless world. Do not marginalise me for being that way.
I have been a sort of outsider all of my life, but I don't think the extreme catering to the undefined individual is the best thing for humans as a group. If anything, it makes us more atomized, and I have yet to be convinced that individuals tend to happier when they have been maximally individualized.
People should have the freedom to not identify with gender, or want a gender neutral voice assistant, but I don't see how a genderless society is preferable.