I prefer “bio woman” when a distinction needs to be made between women and transwomen, because the only time it does is as regards biological realities. Real, observable differences which constrain a person rather than the metaphysics of opt-in gender identity. A woman claiming male gender identity isn’t going to be spared FGM, nor is a transman in a men’s prison going to be able to use it as some sort of talisman against rape. Nor does it in itself obviate the sexual assault risk profile or criminality associated with biological men, or their profound physical advantages in women’s sports.
All the new concept of “innate” gender identity does is legitimise the way a person chooses to express themselves, while ideally society would require no such rationalisation for not adhering to gendered dress codes or naming conventions.
Gender dysphoria is real, but we don’t need a word for the absence of each and every condition out there. I mean, am I also cisabled because the counterpoint of transabled (people whose body and therefore the way they are regarded socially does not reflect their felt identity as disabled) exists?
A term like “cis” requires buying into an ideology with a very specific purpose. I don’t view “cis” as a slur per se, though it certainly can be when there’s an implication that being born female and then being subjected to the way girls are socialised is some sort of “privilege” transwomen are missing out on.
I would address a transperson by their chosen name and pronouns, but that means I also get to opt-out of labels that do not describe me and my experience of being, rather than “feeling” like, a woman.
The “cis” doesn’t mean “sissy” bit and the Latin lesson is talking down to people. What does such a poorly constructed strawman achieve apart from alienating readers?