Don’t forget ‘houseless’ or ‘transient’ to describe homeless. Or ‘bodies with vaginas’ to describe women. Or ‘latinx’ to describe latinos. Pretty sure all of these are exonyms. The linguistic contortions we have to perform to describe things we already had perfectly acceptable words for is absurd and rarely serves the person or thing being described.
As I understand it, "people with <x> genitalia" is a trans-accepting way of discussing medical issues without rejecting anyone's gender identification. Having a vagina is no longer considered necessary or sufficient to be called a "woman".
I’m not the OP, but I think we deeply erred by conflating gender and biological sex characteristics into a single word. Unfortunately, the solution to retain men/women for gender and use more specific terminology for sex is problematic.
- There’s a greater argument to be made for binary biological sex, and you can attach obvious descriptions to it to make the two categories distinct.
- Gender on the other hand is more fluid (both historically in its expression, and in between cultures).
- Biological based terminology can be used historically (e.g. Women’s History)
