"Persons who are not trans" is not a short term of the kind we need, but I think the implicit assumption that it equals "normal" is something that may just have to be lived with. Don't terms like "able-bodied" or even "seeing" or "hearing" (as contrasted with those who aren't) carry the same implicit assumption, even though not expressed as a negative? Those seem to be accepted. Maybe the long term ought to be "person whose birth body matches up with their own mental image of what sex they are."

I do wonder about the "normal" part. I mean, I get the impression - though it may not be the right impression - that people who are not able-bodied accept that something went wrong with their physical development, even though some of them - many of the deaf, in particular - consider that something to be part of their self-identity and don't want to have it corrected. Homosexuals, on the other hand, tend to bristle at the suggestion that there's anything "wrong" with them, and they emphatically don't want it "corrected" either, though that may be because of the rhetoric and attitude of those who think they can correct it.

But I don't know what attitudes prevail among the trans about this. Since so many of them go in for surgery, I'd expect they'd be willing to say that it isn't normal to have a body that doesn't match your sex identity, as this is either a burden you have to live with or something you get medically fixed. What's your take on that question, not just your own opinion but your perception of what others think?