I’d already deployed all caps in my first response to the piece. Funny how you seem to have taken issue with both the ‘slur’ you pointed to AND my correction. Taken both personally, it might even be inferred.
You’ve laid our your stall plainly now.
You’re ‘subtle’ rejection of ‘cis’ as a perfectly natural Latin antonym of ‘trans’ (as opposed to the clunky construction ‘non-trans’) has made your position more than plain.
You do my work for me.