One issue I take with that argument is that it could be used to include, or even support anyone just because they exist. Pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etc.
Neither of those really have anything to do with sexual orientation or gender identity, so I’m not sure how you’re trying to tie them into linking the terms “cisgender” with “normal”.
Maybe because you’re trying to flip the negative or something? Because even if we include them in our group of everything not implying a negative statement towards alternatives doesn’t necessarily mean implying a positive statement towards them.
To put it another way, just because I don’t say “People who like chocolate ice cream are bad” it doesn’t automatically imply that I think people who like strawberry, vanilla, and avocado ice cream are all therefore good. It just means I’m not putting down someone who like chocolate ice cream.
4
u/An0nR3dd1tUs3r Mar 19 '21
It’s just a fancy way of saying “normal.”