Don't be too hard on them.
It was academically qualified people such as some of the posters on this thread that throughout the Khelif discussions really made it clear that 'cis' was meaningless as a word in its use for describing women.
I mean, when you can claim that a male with a difference of sex development and a virilised body (from using testosterone produced from their very own testes) is a 'cis woman', you cannot miss the very fact that female people no longer have a word that they can use to describe their unique body type.
Because remember, we have been told under the word 'woman' there are 'cis women' and there are 'transwomen'.
And now, it is perfectly clear that neither of those subcategories of the word 'woman' is unique to female people. So, we really have to thank the posters who 'educated' us on that.
Because that along with the latest statements that being 'trans' doesn't require any gender dysphoria, it does mean that less and less people are inclined to use the language that some posters on this very thread have tried to shame others to use. Because, who feels the need to support someone else's philosophical belief when it demands you to misrepresent what you and science know is the truth?
I mean, I am all for looking at the evidence that any male person can become or is a 'female person' . Bring it on.