The necessity of clarifying the by-far-most-common case can itself be interpreted as demeaning. Let's try an analogy--I don't know if it'll work, but here goes.

Suppose that people who detransition get tired of being marginalized relative to trans people, and point out that having ever transitioned has some medical and societal implications. Therefore, they decide that trans people have to call themselves "peri-trans" (i.e. "currently trans") in any context where a detransitioned person might be overlooked; the detransitioned person is a post-trans person in that context. Never mind that the number of trans people is vastly greater than the number of detransitioned people. Sound cool to you?

If no, then maybe you have gained some insight. If yes, well, the analogy failed.

But beyond that, you don't need to understand. If people report that a term feels icky or cold, and that they desire warmth or intimacy, the thing to do is take the concern seriously. If it's a genuine concern (of course, people do express fake concerns to try to get their way--but you shouldn't assume this as the default), you can't talk them out of their feelings almost ever.

You instead need to sell the new term. Glorify and idolize "cis womanhood" and I'm pretty sure within a few years nobody will mind the modifier.