The article itself has a very clear moral conservative bias. According to whoever wrote that article, the terms cisgender and transgender were "made up" by SJWs, not by the people actually living the shit-hole people like them have made the lives of those who happen to BE transgender.

Also, the writer clearly has no sense of the history of language. The correct English term for a new word that has only recently entered the lexicon is coined. The fact that there is a word for it, and it's not simply saying it's a "made up" word, signifies something important: at some point in time, every single word in use in every single language had to be COINED by a person or group of persons. That's the nature of a LIVING language. It either grows and evolves with people constantly contributing to it, or it dies. Transgender and cisgender are words. They were coined fairly recently. Their definitions are still in a malleable state. But they ARE words. New ones.

Assholes who want to stay in the past are more than welcome to do so. They're only required to do one thing: die. That is, after all, what history is: Things that are dead and gone. Yes, they shaped the present. However, despite what actual intelligence would say ought to happen, history never shapes the future. History gets forgotten, sometimes a good thing, usually a bad thing, but whether it's good or bad to forget history, the reality is the same.

Here, in the present, the future is being shaped, and that future is looking a whole lot nicer for transgender people. After all, we're increasingly being recognized as even BEING people. The writer of that piece of literal idiocy would rather we remain what we were in the past: a statistic.