If "cis" means not-transsexual, that would be over 99% of people. Why would we need a special label for that? We don't have special labels for people who are not-diabetic, not-arthritic, not-colitic, or not-anorexic, just to name a handful of more common conditions.
If, on the other hand, "cis" means "comfortable with your gender stereotype," then that is an odd thing to call feminists, who are devoted to deconstructing and fighting those stereotypes, not to mention lesbians and gay men, who are persecuted for failing to perform the compulsory heterosexuality that is central to the social construct of gender. Yet as a function of the trans/cis binary, if a female person does not "identify as a man" she must then accept the label "cis woman" and the uncontested relationship with gender stereotypes that implies.
(I'm not going down the internet rabbit hole of "non-binary" identities in this blog, which is too long as it is. Suffice to say young people who think they are special for not identifying as walking gender stereotypes need to accept that nobody is a walking gender stereotype. No woman was born to serve men, no man was born to dominate women.)
і ще одна цитата: Men abuse transwomen for one of two reasons: Because they mistake them for females, or because they correctly identify them as gender non-conforming males. In one case, transwomen are momentarily exposed to the daily brutality that is visited on female people since birth, and in the other, they are punished for failing to live up to their role as dominators in the eyes of other men. Neither of those situations makes femaleness a privileged position – in fact, neither of those situations can be properly understood unless one admits that femaleness carries the primal oppression in response to which anti-trans violence manifests.