The term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.
There is no word left for female people.
Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.
In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.
But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.
To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:
1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.
Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:
Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.
These terms mean:
Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^
Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.
Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.
The other significant issue with ‘cis’ is that its very usage forcibly categorises someone into having a philosophical belief that they may or may not have. It is very problematic for those who do not have a ‘gender identity’.
In fact, to extrapolate it out : if ‘cis’ excludes those who do not ‘identify as having a gender aligned with the sex they were born’ then the trans gender community would be fucking huge. Because it would include everyone who doesn’t believe in gender identities at all. Not through deliberately self-categorisation as ‘agender’ but simply through rejection of anything to do with that philosophical belief that is the foundation for gender identity and the theories that shape those identities.
Because, the only commonality with all those claiming a transgender identity is philosophical belief. Not a medical 'problem' according to transgender people and academics and medical professionals who are transgender and shaping public awareness. No scientific and robustly established material facts.
So only philosophical belief.
And I would be pleased to know just what other philosophical belief should be given the power to shape a whole populations language to the extent that we are seeing these language changes being demanded?
If someone who was religious called me a non-believer, I cannot dispute that. Because it reflects my reality. I don’t believe in their religion so in their religion centred language that is what I am. It could be considered neutral in that respect. It doesn’t change my belief.
However, calling me ‘cis’ is not neutral. It falsely categorises my beliefs and is not a neutral act at all. Calling me ‘cis’ coercively forces me to believe in gender identity and the theories that are foundational to them.
So 'cis' is meaningless and false.