Yes, that's what I meant. It's hard to say "what" is because it's hard to say what "is".

People in dominant groups ask "what" minority groups "are," while neglecting to ask the same questions of themselves and their identities. But the question can and should apply to everyone. Certain minoritized identities (like being trans) may arise in part because the person is asking that question—what is the "what," what is the "is"—with or without realizing it, and they begin living their lives in accordance with their question/answer. Certain majoritized ways of being (like being cis) may be the social default in part because most of those people aren't asking quite the same question, or reaching the same answers, in quite the same way.

Personally I suspect there are no essences at bottom. We are meat, briefly alive. Nevertheless, we can speak of "what" we "are" relative to each other: our positions, situations, time periods, etc. using the tools that our language offers. We can also expand our language's possibilities, which is poetry.

Unfortunately, when reactionaries are doing their political harassment, their bias shows up as: I exist validly, you exist invalidly. I'm the essence, and you're a temporary status, if I recognize you at all as an exception to my rule, which I probably don't. It's a bad approach to the question of being because they aren't self-interrogating. They just assume that their lives and self-understandings are the dictionary definition of "what" it means "to be."