Yeah. If her beliefs are coherent (that's a Big "If"), then I think she's saying:

A person's negative assumptions about others constitute "sexism" if they believe their target to be female, "homophobia" if they believe their target to be gay, some kind of masculinity-enforcement if they believe their target to be insufficiently masculine, and so on. She reifies these categories of prejudice into entirely separate things and assumes that every instance of negativity neatly fits into one category or another. ...such that, if a harasser changes their perception of someone else's sex (which can only be binary, female or male), the nature of their harassment immediately shifts from one category to another.

Meanwhile, she says, whether the target of the harassment can think in a "feminist" way depends on whether she was assigned female at birth.

I feel like this is a very...undergraduate level of essentialism she's perpetrating. It's an insistence on slotting every complex human experience into very basic categories.