The ones I've heard express objection to the term do so because they recognize that changing the language is the first step to changing the narrative, and they object to changing the narrative.

It occurred to me to ask such people if they object to being called "heterosexual"; but, upon reflection, I think that's kind of a wise-ass response and not very useful to finding common ground. And it doesn't really address the issue, which is their refusal to recognize the existence of gender as something real.

I think one of the reasons this is a problem is because of some of the claims made for gender by trans apologists. Most people seem to either be unclear on the concept or have a concept of gender that is ultimately unworkable; and, if trans people don't have a clear notion of gender, we can't very well expect cis people to.

I don't want to expound on this in detail here because it's really not necessary. If you strip the concept of gender down to its essentials, it's simply *something* that leads us to place ourselves in a different place on the male-female spectrum than our sex would suggest. What that *something* is, and whether it even exists or not, is a matter of personal opinion, i.e. belief. We believe this because it helps us to explain why we feel the way we do; but we can't prove it.

Despite the relative inoffensiveness of this viewpoint, I think there will continue to be significant resistance from cis quarters to this terminology for some time -- largely because of the extravagant claims and demands made by many trans activists on the basis of something they cannot even prove exists. We are going to be paying for those excesses for awhile, I think.