Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your efforts to share your perspective. However, from my perspective you’ve reinforced my point. These definitions look at the situation as an instantaneous snapshot, i.e. as the person is now, and not where they were or their life history. A person’s life history is, I believe, a much greater indicator of the kind of person they are than a reductionist breakdown of their biochemical makeup.


Also, I reject the term “cis” on the basis that the term “woman” or “man” were and are pefectly valid for centuries. Their invocation today is a passive acknowledgement of logical fallacy of the phrase that 'a trans wo/man is a wo/man". A woman is a woman and a trans woman is a trans woman. Any other perspective is either disrespectful or overreach.