You raise an interesting point.
I think for me there are two issues here. The first is wanting to classify everyone by reference to gender identity, and the second is which words you use to do that.
My view is, you're welcome to invent any identity for yourself that you like, but you shouldn't be cannibalising anyone else's identity in the process.
Let's just simplify things for a minute and imagine that all trans people are biological males who are completely harmless and just feel much more authentic presenting in a stereotypically feminine way. Fine. Good for them. If they believe this is an identity and come up with a term for that identity (for example, flying spaghetti monsters) and use that term to describe themselves, fine. If want everyone else to refer to them as flying spaghetti monsters, I also wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as we all understood that flying spaghetti monsters are a subcategory of men in situations where sex is relevant. If they believed they needed their own toilets and sporting categories for flying spaghetti monsters I'd be a bit sceptical but they'd be welcome to campaign for that.
But that's not what they've done. They've chosen the word "woman" for their identity. This means that anyone who is actually a woman gets co-opted into this identity whether she likes it or not, unless she then chooses to identify as something other than a woman. Our choice is simple: either we accept being colonised and agree to share the word "women" with people who are the opposite of what a woman is, or we accept being usurped, so these people are now women and we no longer are.
Why have they done this? Well, as far as I can see the only reason for doing it is so that they can access women's spaces and sports. These are the only situations in which we really distinguish between men and women in public life. These are the only areas where they need to be recognised as women in order to do something they cannot do as men, even if we all know perfectly well that they are not women. So this pretence benefits them and harms us.
As for the word "cis", it pre-supposes that there are two types of women: cis (female) women and trans (male) women. Simply by using this word or allowing it to be used about you, you are tacitly accepting the premise that a trans woman is also a woman.
So from my point of view, I cannot call a male person a woman and I will never accept being referred to as cis for exactly the same reason: because there is only one kind of woman, i.e. an adult female human.
If this all sounds a bit "my way or the high way", let's return to the first point I made. Why can't they think of a different word for whatever it is they believe they are identifying as? Then we can respect their identity and they can respect ours and we don't have to fight each other or tread on each other's toes? Well the answer is simple. Identifying as us is the whole point. They don't want their own box, they want to force their way into our box and then force us to remain in it with them. It only works as long as the rest of us (whether enthusiastically, grudgingly, or out of fear) play along and pretend we are all part of this imaginary sisterhood. You can bet your life that if we all collectively decided to relinquish the word "women", identified as trans men, non binary or flying spaghetti monsters and created our own spaces, today's trans women would start identifying as that and demanding access to those spaces.
I believe there are some trans women, such as India Willoughby for example, who do this very consciously and actively despise women. And I also believe that there are some "nice" trans women who just feel like the odd one out among other men, much prefer women, genuinely see themselves as one of the girls, and feel sad about mean TERFs who don't want to include them. But these trans women are just a variation on the "nice guy" theme. You know, the nice guy who believes you should want to date him because he's such a nice guy who will give you foot massages and slip love notes in your lunchbox and would never ever cheat, and doesn't understand that that's just not how emotions and human attraction work. Access to women (whether as romantic partners or as fellow users of a communal changing room) isn't a reward for being a nice person. We are autonomous human beings in our own right and there are limits to how you can influence our thoughts and feelings through your own behaviour. Sometimes we just don't want you hanging around for whatever reason, and that is our right.
I've gone off on a bit of a tangent with that last bit, but to come back to the point, it's not a trade off. We don't have to accept being called cis, or TERFs or worse, just because we don't refer to them as women and it's tit for tat. It's not tit for tat. If we reject the idea that "woman" is a word for a gender identity that they have, it's far more consistent to reject all of it, the preferred pronouns, the cis, the whole lot.