Why is the word "homosexual ' (a scientific word) considered bad but" cis" (also scientific) considered OK?

@BlueVeins do they have to articulate it? Shouldn't it be enough that significant contingents of natal people don't like it?

@DrBenway The only reason imo why conservatives (and yes, it's predominantly conservatives) object to the term 'cisgender' is that it concisely and effectively categorizes them separately from transgender people. If we started calling non-trans people "natal people," the same conservative speakers would make the same complaints anyway.

And frankly, I'm really reluctant to care about the twinge of unexplained offense some of my cisgender compadres might feel when being referred to as cisgender in light of the fact that we're one of the least vulnerable and least mistreated demographic groups on the face of the Earth. Frankly, I think you guys gotta get over it.

@BlueVeins you don't understand. I'm not conservative. I'm nearly- but not quite- an ally. If trans advocates would like to advance their cause, they need to understand that there are certain consessions they need to make. One of them is that they don't get to screw about with the lexicon everyone uses without there being some resistance. Language should evolve organically and everyone gets to have a hand in in its trajectory.

If that doesn't happen, we remain where we're at: people saying one thing but thinking another for fear of getting of getting cancelled. Lip service.

@DrBenway I seriously doubt the amount of people who are fine with transgender rights but aren't fine with being referred to as 'cisgender' is big enough to warrant serious accomodation.

@BlueVeins it's funny you mentioned that. 2% of population are (at max) trans. But it could be as low as 0.5%.

Guess it depends on what type of trans. Better not go down that rabbit hole though.