This seems to me academic over-analysis. To me, “cis” is not a linguistical power play. It is a linguistic convention for convenience. Let’s start with your sports example. “[F]or example, in “sports” and “women’s sports,”. Right, we say “women’s sport” when meaning women’s sports. We say “sports” when we mean all sports. Sure, there are some nuances, like “I’m a sports fan”, which implies a fan of professional sports, which is mostly male, but that is the exception. “The high school has a good sports program”, would not imply it does not have girls sports. “My wife and I enjoy sports. We play tennis often”, would imply we probably play together.
It is the same with categorizing people. There are male people and there are non-male people. We call the non-male people female. That’s not a power play, is it? Likewise, we say transgender people and non-transgender people. (“People” would include both groups). It is easier to say cis-gender. If I was talking to my great aunt, I might say, “people who aren’t transgender” to be more clear to her as cis is a relatively new word, but that is for her sake, not because of power politics.
I read your article because I thought I would finally get a strong argument for why the word cis-gender is inappropriate, which I don’t agree with. You did not make either claim.
I am starting to get the sense that the only people who really have a problem with the “cis” term are internet trolls and political kooks and maybe a few academics who are over-analyzing things.