For me, that was a thoroughly awful piece wherein the writer constructs straw-activists, seems to largely be complaining about an unjustified sense of entitlement to various spaces, and appeals to vacuous respectability politics. Perhaps I'm not being generous enough to them given past experience with pieces like this and apologise if that's the case.
I do have issues with the way some people treat cis/trans as clear absolutes. I don't regard them as bright-line definitions but that's also true of almost all definitions. The fact that there are exceptions does not negate the usefulness and pragmatic need for a word due to general applicability.
My issues with the piece:
1) I don't even agree with the way 'cisgender' is defined, it's a straw-definition for the writer to beat. The writer conveniently collapses the word into a single blunt meaning rather than acknowledging the multifaceted, nuanced, and complex nature of it. I think the fundamental thinking here is akin to, but infinitely less harmful than, people that cite the dictionary definition of 'race' in order to ignore the relevant impact of institutional power on its nature. A more relevant example might be the way the gamete-production definition of 'sex' is used to invalidate transsexual people despite sex having many other aspects and that a simplistic definition excludes the infertile. In my personal view, definitions are just very basic references and not the entirety of a subject or usage.
2) The arguments made against 'cisgender' are entirely applicable to 'transgender' too. We didn't create the latter. It was, and is, often foisted on us by society and we accordingly need a definition for those that oppress us. I regard the usage and conceptions of cisgender as acts of necessary self-defence and community unification. Furthermore, I fail to see why the writer is targeting resources at an infinitesimal portion of the population that is already attacked, go and convince the majority of people to stop categorising genders and imposing constructs. Users of 'cisgender' aren't the ones with the overwhelming power to perpetuate the limitation of self-identification with prescriptive rules so it's just misguided to focus on us.
3) Referring to the use of cisgender as an 'act of aggression' is utterly ridiculous. It is a term used by a marginalised group to refer to those that marginalise and frequently harm them in awful ways. Flowing from that, it's minimising and insulting to suggest the use of cisgender is violent. It's especially egregious when the justification relies on the weak straw-definition.
4) The usage of the absolutist and limited definition results in what I'd consider gender expression being conflated with gender identity to make arguments about restriction. Accordingly, the arguments that follow are nonsense to me. In my mind, cisgender no more determines a person's capacity to express their gender as they wish than 'heterosexual' denotes how a person must treat partners, approach prospective partners, what genitals they'll find appealing, or what personality traits they find attractive in partners. Equally, I could easily use the reference definitions of 'straight,' 'gay,' 'heterosexual,' 'bisexual,' or 'homosexual' in dictionaries to argue they're violent due to the erasing implication that there are only two sexes and genders. Of course, I won't make that argument because the dictionary isn't the totality of the words. They are entirely capable of continuously evolving to embrace new concepts and identities, they aren't limited to what's written in a reference book.
5) Mischaracterises references to privilege and, rather arrogantly, assumes that a person with a given privilege can always already be aware of their privilege or correct about its effects. The writer also mischaracterises the point of such discussion, it isn't to silence people and invalidate them but to get them to listen to the experiences of others and to re-examine bias. Generally, the point is to create a more unified and representative movement via encouraging empathy, giving space rather than speaking over the affected, and understanding what each other can contribute. The fact the writer sees it as 'weaponised' says more about the purpose they ascribe to discussion and, to me, betrays their inability to perceive their own biases. Instead of being considerate when given the chance, they seem to get defensive and huffy because their almighty opinion on everything isn't instantly valued. I'd argue the article is a product of that.
6) For me, the writer devolves into building a straw-feminist and totally misses the point about excluding men from some areas of discussion when it comes to gender. Affected genders need a space where they can form ideas based on personal experiences and thought and experimentation without the inherent power men have risking domination or harm to it. While it's true that 'patriarchy hurts men too,' I'd argue the violence is fundamentally targeted at people perceived as belonging to the 'woman' category and almost all harm against those ascribed to the 'man' category actually has its origins in that anti-'woman' attitude. If those identified as men wish to target the harms patriarchy inflicts on men then they are welcome to it and are welcome to create their own space with their own focus to address it. However, they are not entitled to enter an existing space and demand inclusion for the oppressor group by the oppressed. The fundamental thinking here again reminds me of, though is infinitely less harmful than, those that think white people should be involved in discussions of race because white people are restricted by harmful racial expectations too. This thinking ignores the massive power imbalances present that impact practical needs.
7) I think it's grossly disingenuous to say gay men are becoming the enemy. I'd argue the way white (middle-class, cisgender, educated, able) gay men wield their power is simply coming under greater scrutiny. Moreover, criticism shouldn't be silenced and avoided for the sake of unity given that white gay men do have a history of appropriating resources and gay-washing/white-washing activism when it proves convenient to their political needs. Labelling legitimate criticism homophobia or division is further evidence of their historical dominance and unwillingness to listen, in my view.
8 ) The closing of the article suggests a complete lack of understanding about the dynamics of oppression. Suffering on one axis does not mean your advantages on another are eliminated. Like the writer, I've found it hard to control mental illness derived from gender-related stress and I was constantly read as a gay man (I'm bi/pan) but that doesn't mean my pain there allows me to expect acceptance in, for instance, black spaces when I'm white.
Ultimately, I regard this as yet another person writing a hit piece on the transgender community due to their latent prejudices and resistance to positive change. If one of these articles can ever produces criticism of 'cisgender' that isn't also equally applicable to 'straight' or 'heterosexual' then I'll accept it. Also, eap at the length. I just have a lot of free time today and lost myself in being a tad peeved. *blushes and hides*
