I hear, at the end of your article, the need for new, better vocabulary about trans people's bodies. Any word that we trans people embrace (individually or in our friend group) will be true for us, but I fear that the new word (whatever it may be) will be spoiled as soon as it is no longer simply a term of self-description but starts to be used to identify another person as trans-rather-than-cis. The point of such a word, if I understand you correctly, would be to recognize that a person's body type does not imply whether that person is cis or trans. And the term wouldn't be meant only as self-affirmation; it would be intended for use by others to describe us, too. But sometimes we don't want others to affirm us, because their affirmation would just amount to unnecessarily pointing out our differences from cis people in situations when it isn't relevant. Sometimes a trans person does not want or need to be identified by our physical traits. And sometimes people guess wrong about our physical traits. As you note at the beginning of your article, the "anti-trans strategy" folks incorrectly assume "that all trans women have penises." Having a new word for biological maleness or femaleness doesn't get around the problem of people making comments about other people's biology and, in the process, oversimplifying or misidentifying it. If someone is making wrong assumptions about the material reality of someone else's genitals (like whether their urethra is long enough to enable them to urinate standing up), using different vocabulary doesn't help. The problem isn't only that they need to be more emotionally sensitive with their chosen words, it's also that they are wrong about material facts about that particular person.

I see your point that the words "male" and "female," in practice, have cultural as well as biological meanings, and it might be useful to have a new word that only carries the biological meaning. Unfortunately, I don't think that any word will keep its biology-only meaning for any length of time. Because so many dominant societies are full of cis-privilege and are anti-trans, when people use any biological term they will tend to assume and imply cis-ness. Another problem is the assumption that "maleness" or "femaleness" is a simplistic all-or-nothing state that applies to an entire human body, such that every "male" or "female" body is pretty much like every other body in the same category—whereas it would be better to see "maleness" or "femaleness" as a trait of some specific body part. Each of us—especially intersex people by definition, also many trans people, and also cis people to some degree—can have a body that is both male and female in various ways and degrees.

Personally, I don't mind hearing the words "female" and "male" in biological contexts, for example, when discussing reproduction or what kind of catheter to use. Nor do I mind hearing my physician use those terms about particular parts of my body—assuming that my physician is reasonably trans-knowledgeable, is not using those terms in a language-dominance game to disparage trans-ness, and is not making entirely factually wrong assumptions about my body parts. Ultimately, I go to the doctor for physical treatment, and much less so for psychological affirmation. If (hypothetically) I were to need a catheter, I want the nurse to insert the correct kind of catheter. If I feel dysphoric about the kind of catheter that works for my body, I can call a friend or psychotherapist to talk through those feelings. It is good to have basic acceptance and affirmation from a medical professional, but I don't need (nor even necessarily want) the medical professional to scrutinize my personality and the possibly private vocabulary I use for my private parts, especially if that's not the interaction we're having and we don't have an ongoing relationship. They might be in the room for two minutes and I just need them to give me the correct physical treatment.

I think everyone should (in general) make an effort to limit their use of the terms "female" and "male" to focus on biology. It bothers me when "female" and "male" are trotted out in social contexts when they are N/A and when they are part of an assumption of cis-ness or when they serve an anti-trans discourse. For example, if I'm at an interactive group event and the speaker wants to divide the room into two sides, and the speaker says, "Males on one side of the room, females on the other," my question would be why the speaker is referencing biology (males and females) rather than self-identified gender (men and women), and, either way, why they are miscategorizing or excluding people who don't wish to publicly identify their body and/or gender (including nonbinary people, but also cis and trans people who are tired of being pigeonholed as "men and women" in random contexts when their gender should be N/A), and why the event has to be a "gender war" at all and we couldn't just have counted off by 1s and 2s to play the very same game. If arbitrary teams would work just as well, the cis leader is revealing their lack of awareness about trans people when they assume that dividing a crowd into binary genders is socially neutral, obvious, and fun for everyone involved.

Basically, my concern is that, since most people aren't careful about their use of the terms "male" and "female," neither will they be careful about their use of a new, substitute term.

Cis people might not use the new word at all. If the new word isn't applied equally to cis and trans people, or if cis people reject the use of this word, the word immediately becomes a "trans" word, not a neutral "trans-and-cis" word. (In the same way that the practice of introducing oneself with one's gendered pronouns essentially outs a person as trans if only trans people do it. If cis people don't sign onto the practice, trans people's pronoun statements come off as a "special accommodation request" and therefore fail to make any broader point about everyone's pronoun use.)

Or, cis people might use it deliberately to hurt us. If someone proposes a new word for sex biology, the anti-trans movement will immediately co-opt it for their declarations that trans people aren't really the gender we say we are, so then the happy trans word will be contaminated by their social construct, and it won't be biology-only anymore.

Or they might just toss it around and use it to mean whatever. Cis people's whatever will tend to be cis-centric.