But that's a different thing. Post-menopausal women don't menstruate, but have a vagina and ovaries and are still at risk from ovarian cancer (in fact, are at elevated risk). Trans men don't necessarily menstruate even if they haven't had a gonadectomy--people respond differently to hormones. Trans women sometimes end up with hormonal cycling that could possibly be called a menstrual cycle. The needs of these people, despite some similarities, may all be different.

This in fact underlines my point in support of Harris' concern: you want to talk about the major patterns and then talk about exceptions, because you have to think through the details of the exceptions.

The reason this kind of thing can be Orwellian is that it can be externally forced in order to try to control people's thoughts and actions--and that's exactly the point of newspeak. Trying to control how people think by only permitting them to use language that facilitates the approved thought patterns.

Again, there is no need for the term. It's completely pointless medically and scientifically. We're totally fine talking about gynecomastia as a somewhat unusual condition without going into "bodies with developed breasts". "Lizards have five toes" is a totally reasonable statement, notwithstanding three-toed skinks and legless lizards. We make general statements and put things into categories. There are exceptions. This is life! We deal with it all the time.

In fact, assuming that "bodies with vaginas" and high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen are the same as bodies with vaginas with low testosterone and high estrogen sounds potentially medically dangerous to me.

People should absolutely get the care that they need. Forcing or even promoting awkward language that obscures important distinctions and obscures important co-occurrences is an ill conceived path to this.