You know what's laughable about it? Many biological females don't tend to realise they have a specific body part called a cervix until they are asked for a smear or they birth a child. Indeed, I've known obstetricians who talk about "the neck of the womb" to patients because they realise that a lot of people don't know the medical term.
So "individuals with a cervix" isn't inclusionary at all; it discriminates against any biological female who doesn't realise they have a cervix and that will include transmen as well.
Yep. Think it was Jo's Trust who found half of all women don't know what a cervix is. But really, we all know that this has nothing to do with cancer, or they'd be going for men's cancer charities, and they aren't - because transwomen don't want the connection with male biology, just as they don't want the word 'woman' connected with female. This is all of a piece of Scots law redefining 'woman' to include males, while leaving 'man' well alone.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thought crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
Orwell, 1984.
The language is the point. The colonisation of 'women' and 'female' the imposition of 'cs' instantly renders us subject to men who define as women, not in spite of but because of the fact that we accept sex is real, and immutable, and impacts us all. The upside down world we are expected to inhabit holds that women who accept objective reality - that women are oppressed because of immutable sex - are instantly dismissed as privileged on the very basis of that acknowledged reality of oppression, and must have our rights rendered subject to the demands of males, denying that objective reality applies equally to them, on the basis of that denial. It makes us cs, and we must therefore accept males who identify in to our class at will. It's utterly bizarre. But we need the language if we are to be able to delineate that truth.
This is exactly what the battle over language is about. Not kindness. Not inclusion. This isn't about trans men, because TRA's don't care about trans men unless they can be used against women asserting women's rights - look at Radcliffe, given a response to Rowling that wholly ignored trans men and trumpeted over the rights of transwomen. This is all, as ever, about male demands. There's a reason the woke bros on Twitter gaslight, police, mansplain, hector and insult feminists, instead of going after those calling all male people men, instead. I don'tbelieve for one minute that they really give a stuff about trans, or they would be putting their own men's house in order, and examining their own language, provisions, and spaces for behaviour towards trans men. (Or indeed, and heaven forfend, how they could 'expand the bandwidth of what it is to be a man' by embracing males who identify with women's gender roles.) But they don't. Because this is about gunning for women, and women's rights, and it has such traction because a very large number of men are gleefully siezing this golden opportunity, and a depressing number of keen women are aiding them excitedly: a chance to be approved of by affluent white men, while fighting bravely against the status quo, and for civil rights! (You'd imagine that fact, along with the reality that it is the most marginalised of female people whose rights are being erased against their will, might give them pause. It appears not. Any such claim is just those women, "weaponising" their own oppression.)
We need words in order to say why and how we are oppressed. They are absolutely essential. If we lose that, we can't explain what is happening to women, and why it is wrong - which is why the language issue is the one they are gunning for hardest in the first place. It is wholly intentional. The group who control language control thought.
If you can't use the words 'women' and 'female' and mean just that, feminism becomes completely meaningless.