This is clearly not very useful, or reasonable. People's biological sex is none of your business, so using it when talking about them is not viable. If you see

This is clearly not very useful, or reasonable. People's biological sex is none of your business, so using it when talking about them is not viable. If you see someone who is presenting as a woman, calling them a man because you happen to know they are trans isn't useful to anyone you are communicating with, and it's reminding them of something they'd rather not be bought to the forefront, just as with specifying someone is adopted—it's irrelevant to the conversation in 99% of cases. > If we muddy these words to mean gender, then no one will understand what anyone is saying when talking about health, or sexual orientation, etc. We have trans/cis, male/female, and "biological sex"/"gender identity" to distinguish. We manage to be just fine referring to both biological and adoptive parents as just "parents" and we can still specify where necessary. > If we are talking about a transman, then you can talk about their sex by referring to them as a woman and as a female. Their gender identity is "transman". Even if they appear to look like a man, their sex has not changed. Transman isn't a word, it's incorrect. Trans men are men who are trans, in contrast to cis men. Turning it into a single word would be like calling someone a tallman. No one ever claimed their sex changed, their gender identity is distinct from their sex, that was very much the point.