I think that if the dialog goes along the lines that you say in your reply, there isn’t very much conflict.

I do think the man vs. cis man thing is something you’ve dismissed too easily. I think that there are reasonable approaches to take to reassure people that they shouldn’t feel any impact (e.g. do men feel less gender-secure given that we accept gay men as men?), but when you widen a category that people have fit into for a long time to include things that they don’t identify with, and then introduce a new term that they have no affinity with and tell them they have to switch if they want the exact same old connotations, you are asking for something on their part. It might be a reasonable ask, but you are absolutely replacing the old language with inclusive language that has some differences in meaning: that is the whole point.

The danger, I think, is in being too flippantly dismissive of concerns expressed about language when used in ways that have a noticeable impact. Do we rename “feminine products”? Is prostate screening a “women’s issue”? What about advocacy for appropriately-sized tools for women?

There are plenty of opportunities for fervor for inclusivity to directly and negatively impact the gathering of support for important issues that are neglected precisely because of historical sexism and/or gender stereotypes mixed with biological reality.

None of this means that inclusive language isn’t desirable, but as with many things, if the desire for it is wielded with zealotry, it does have the potential to harm other worthwhile efforts. I wouldn’t normally be concerned, except that social media apparently rewards zealotry in all things.