I go along with their gender/sex framing, with gender (man, woman) referring to personal identification, and sex (male, female) referring to biology. I find it easier to make the case that while someone may, for example, "identify" as a woman, they remain biologically male,

I personally use 'dysphoric man/male', 'trans-identified man/male', or 'man with GD', and at worst, 'trans woman' if it means moving a conversation forward but always qualifying it mean man with GD. Never 'woman', because it already frames you as the bigot for othering a kind of woman (which he's not), and capitulating that he is factually a woman and, consequently, a female (which he's not) which is definitely the end objective, to the detriment of women's rights.

The point is 'woman' has always meant the biological sex class, under the realm of science and law. For example, women were deprived of rights not because of her inner gender identity, but because of her biological identity as a woman. Science has always referred to humans with the female anatomy, including leaving this entire sex class behind in terms of research. It is absurd to suddenly re-classify the label like a social occupation you can id in and out of... especially while females are STILL CURRENTLY experiencing oppression based on her body.

Linguistically, it is stupid that we have doe/deer, goose/gander, cow/bull-- but suddenly man/woman must be relabelled as 'adult human with testes'/'adult female with eggs'. Like how do you re-label 'women's health research' when in this case, women means anyone with a uterus, anyone with a uterus and identifies as male, AND anyone with a penis-- so 'people's health research'?