“Cis-gender” is a made-up concept to bolster the notions that
a) “trans” means “the opposite of X” and
b) that “gender identity” is anything more than an unverifiable hypothesis.
If 1% of the population imagine that they have a “gender identity” there is no obligation on the 99% to humour them to extent of agreeing that
a) they believe such a thing exists and
b) that they have one as well.
It’s like someone who believes in psychoanalytic theory insisting that everyone must
a) believe in psychoanalytic theory and
b) must own up to having an Ego and an Id.
To answer either “Yes” or “No” to the OP’s question is to accept the premise that “gender identity” exists. It is simply a construct of Gender Ideology and no one is obliged to accept its tenets any more than they are obliged to accept the tenets of Pastafarianism.
Not all trans people understand “trans” to mean “a type of person”. The other meaning is that it is a way of living your life in a continuous journey of transition that, logically, cannot have a final destination as no one can change sex. “Gender identity” does not feature in that model. Neither does “cis” because there is no static “trans” state to which it could stand in opposition.
I came across this analysis recently, which goes into the linguistic wriggling around the terms “trans” and “cis”:
(Too much to italicise it all so you’ll have to squint to see it as a quote)
“ Dictionaries typically give three or four definitions of the prefix ‘trans-‘, but from an etymological point of view they boil down to two, both from Latin, and cognate with Greek ‘meta’ in some of its senses.
Either it means ‘on the other side of’, or it means ‘undergoing change’.
The first use is the original one, but is now by far the rarer, being limited to chemistry, where it refers to chemical bonds being on the other side of a line of symmetry, and geography, the Romans having named two of their European provinces Trans-Alpine Gaul and Cis-Alpine Gaul.
This terminology has been borrowed a few times, with Transjordania and Cisjordania meaning territories on one side or the other of the river Jordan, and Transkei and Ciskei referring in the same way to the two banks of the river Kei. The prefix cis-, meaning ‘on this side of’ is also used in chemistry, this being an analogy to the geographic use.
Far more common is the meaning of ‘trans-‘ as to do with change, as in translate, transform, transaction, transition, and many other familiar words. It is immediately clear that none of these words have opposites with cis-. A moment’s thought shows why.
If we say that something is on the other side of a barrier, then we can conceive of something on this side of it. But if we say that something changes, then there is really no need to have a word for the state in which no change has taken place. If we do want to form a negative, we negate the whole word. If something is not translated, it is not ‘cislated’; it is untranslated or just not translated. ‘Cisformed’ is incomprehensible; untransformed or not transformed is fine. Un-transacted.
With nouns, though, even this kind of negation is impossible, not exactly for grammatical but for logical reasons. An iconic ‘trans’ word, the title of Lou Reed’s 1972 album that included ‘Walk on the Wild Side’, is ‘Transformer’. So what is the opposite of that? Cisformer? Not transformer? Like most common nouns, it has no negation.
So how has it come about that when applied to sex and gender, the word ‘trans’ is widely believed to have an opposite in ’cis’? Cis-gender, cis-sexual, even cis-man and cis-woman? There is only one explanation. In this usage, both ‘trans’ and ‘cis’ are meaningless.
In fact, they share the special kind of meaninglessness we have already seen in the Wikipedia definition of homophobia. As a purely ideological term, ‘trans’ can mean whatever the fashion of the moment decrees. Currently, one of its main uses is in the expression ‘the trans community’, a term which suggests that there are lots of different kinds of trans people (or ‘folks’ as they are often called for reasons that escape me: is ‘people’ a politically incorrect term too?) and they are all joined together in one big happy family. So I have a question. What about transvestites? Are they part of the ‘trans community’? And if not, why not?
There has been an attempt to unperson the transvestite population.
Paradoxically, it seems that it is only by disavowing their ‘trans’ name that transvestites are allowed into the ‘trans community’. The word ‘transvestite’ dates from the 1920s and therefore predates both ‘transsexual’ (1949) and ‘transgender’ (1966), and there was no mystery about what it meant. There were female transvestites, often lesbians who dressed as men in public, but the bulk of transvestites were heterosexual or mainly heterosexual men who got a sexual thrill from dressing up in women’s clothes at home. They might occasionally go to some party or special event, or risk an outing to the pub, but it was mainly a private passion indulged at home.
Since the ‘born in the wrong body’ ideology had not yet been invented, it never occurred to anyone that indulging in this harmless fetish was the start of an important journey towards changing into women or anything like that. Transvestites don’t want surgery or hormones and are content with the thrill of occasionally dressing up.
Since this does not fit the narrative of trans ideology, according to which any small boy who shows an interest in putting on a dress is to be whisked off for a lifetime of drugs and surgery ‘before it is too late’, happily heterosexual adult transvestites (often married, and borrowing their wives’ clothes) are something of an embarrassment.
However, it seems that if they stop calling themselves transvestites and start calling themselves ‘cross-dressers’ then they are allowed to be part of the trans community. Since ‘cross-dresser’ and ‘transvestite’ mean exactly the same thing, the only difference seems to be the use of the prefix ‘trans’.”
From:
“Trans + Gender = Civilizational Collapse”
Christopher Lord, April 2020
newdiscourses.com/2020/04/trans-gender-civilizational-collapse/