Thank you for reading and commenting.

I made an edit to the piece so that it’s clear that transgender gay men are not its focus, if only because the question “Are gay men cisgender?” is pretty well answered by the term “transgender gay man.” The answer is, “No. Transgender gay men are not cisgender. Because they’re transgender (or genderqueer or gender non-binary, etc, etc., etc.)” I thought that was obvious in the writing but I made it more explicit.

Neither you nor I know the gender identity of all those who “weaponize cisgender.” My personal experience on the receiving end of such efforts to silence and marginalize has occurred in various LGBTQIA+ digital spaces over several years: listservs, Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. I didn’t catalog the names, much less make assumptions about the gender identities, of those deploying “cisgender” as a weapon. Which is why the essay isn’t about those who use it. It’s about a fundamental and unexamined assumption buried at the heart of that usage.

And, no, I am not “outraged” or offended.” Not all social analysis is the product of the writer’s “outrage” or “offense.” I’m not “offended.” I’m puzzled about the gender politics of alienating an entire group of potential allies by attributing to them a gender identity that is not supported by the readily available evidence. Asking that question doesn’t make me anyone’s “oppressor.”

You mention some really interesting topics at the end of your comment. My piece wasn’t about any of them but I encourage you to write about them on Medium. I’d be happy to read those essays!