Haraway writes that cyborgs are part of a genderless world because they do not conform to notions of gender, race, class, etc because, well, they are cyborgs. That said, some cyborgs mimic these notions of femininity and masculinity because they are not working to overthrow the status quo; in fact, they have been created to reproduce more of the same (e.g, fembots).
However, Haraway is saying: "Hey folks, we already rely on technology in very intimate ways ("We are cyborgs") so why don't we just claim our cyborg-ness and use these technologies to combat the status quo (e.g, oppression and domination)?!"
And then she gives some examples to prove how we are already cyborgs (prosthetics, intimate relations with animals, viruses that change our DNA, etc).
Finally, she gives us some warnings about how tricky this type of work is going to be because these technologies were developed for purposes other than our social liberation.
There's a couple of reasons she writes in this difficult style-- most of them are philosophical in origin. First, following the work ofLuce Irigaray, she is writing against a writing tradition established by Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, Hegel, Freud, Lacan, etc. Because (many of) these thinkers were openly racist and misogynistic, she (and others like her) are trying to break from that tradition. Instead of always going back to the same male philosophers, some feminist thinkers believe that feminist movements would be better served in writing their own histories of philosophy.
Secondly, she assumes that her readers have a high level of investment and prior knowledge of the feminist movement. It is an accurate assumption for the majority of her audience, but it makes the text very challenging for any reader who is not steeped in feminist theory. Oy!
Finally, I would argue (and not everyone agrees with this) is that she is trying to demonstrate that language is one technology with which we have turned ourselves into cybrogs. Because language structures so many of our technologized institutions and we use language to develop new technologies (consider computer languages and narratives about cyberspace), she is trying to use this technology creatively to make it more visible and less like "sunshine" (which is what she calls the best technologies. Consider page 37: "our best machines are made of sunshine, they are all light and clean." How I interpret this passage is that the best machines go undetected as machines-- they seem to us as natural as sunlight. What could seem more natural (to most of us) than language? And yet, humans have invented language.