I'd be interested to know whether the women who object to the term cisgender on the basis that it suggests they are 'subordinate' within their gender feel the same about other human descriptors.
'Cis' is not a descriptor. It pretends to be an adjective but it does not function like one. It is actually a linguistic suicide bomber with no grammatical analogues outside of Orwell's Newspeak, because unlike a true modifier, it doesn't add to the sense of the head noun: it obliterates its meaning.
'Trans' and 'cis' are in no way analogous to adjectives like 'straight' and 'gay', which do not change the definition of the noun to which they apply. By saying that a man is straight, you are not altering the definition of man from adult human male. Similarly 'black' or 'disabled' don't change the definition of 'woman' one iota. A black woman is an adult human female who is also black. A 'trans woman' is... what? Not an adult human female, certainly, so what does 'woman' mean in this context? Thus 'trans' is not functioning as a descriptor of a noun like 'black', it is actually obliterating the meaning of the noun to which it is applied. Including males in the category of woman doesn't just change the definition of 'woman', it renders it meaningless, since the word itself only exists in order to distinguish adult human females from adult human males. Once both sexes can be 'women', the word no longer has any objective meaning - it is simply a label that any human being can apply to themselves, for any reason they choose.
So, under this brave new paradigm, what are the rules for deciding who may define the terms under which womanhood and all things pertaining to it may be discussed? Who gets to speak confidently, uninterrupted and with authority over the now ontologically meaningless category of 'woman', and who must apologise and second guess themselves when speaking about it, and confess that their insights can only ever be partial and insufficient? Trans ideology, which claims to be freeing us all from the shackles of biology as a social determinant, actually has a single, immutable standard for deciding this: reproductive biology.
Under trans doctrine, people with male biology not only have the right to claim to be 'women' based on a self-declared 'feeling', but also to dictate the terms by which people with female biology discuss their womanhood and how they organise around it. On all matters pertaining to the category 'woman' and the language we use to discuss it, people with male biology who claim to 'feel like' people with female biology must be deferred to and catered to and never contradicted by by the people who actually have female biology.
Thus, in the radical, revolutionary world of trans ideology, the female-born second guess themselves, apologise for expressing or even thinking thoughts, lest something they have said offends or excludes the male-born, promise to 'do better' at centring males in their thoughts, words and actions, and most especially at centring them in the political movement that was founded by females to liberate themselves from millennia of oppression by males. The male-born never return even an ounce of this deference and humility in kind, but perpetually scold the females for not catering to them sufficiently, and for failing to show adequate deference and submission. How revolutionary. How very unlike the sexed power dynamics of the past 5000 years. Way to go, queer theorists.