Sensible take by the economist on the word woman

[allsorts1]

www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/why-the-word-woman-is-tying-people-in-knots

Furthermore, understanding could suffer. Medical advice, for instance, has to be clear and intelligible by all. That is why Britain’s National Health Service often prefers words like “stomach ache” to “dyspepsia”, or “heart attack” to “myocardial infarction”. One survey conducted by a cervical-cancer charity suggested that around 40% of women are unsure about the details of what exactly a cervix is. This implies that asking “people with cervixes” to turn up for screening appointments may not be clear or intelligible, especially to women who have English as their second language.

this is just about decoupling the word woman from female biology so that men can claim the word,

Exactly. Otherwise you would see the word man being subjected to the same eye watering re-definition. Which, in itself is interesting as people don't seem to have embraced prostate havers, or ejaculators in quite the same way.

And it's also quite the leap to imagine that the vanishingly small number of women who identify as men, most of whom appear to be young teenagers, are managing to change our entire language, right up to the front page of the Lancet. Since when has anyone listened to women?

No, it's the word woman that is apparently up for grabs. And the only way that men can claim to be one, is if it does not, in any way at all, rely on female biology. Hence the need to decouple the word woman from her biology.

That's why 'not all women have a cervix.'

Yet simultaneously those people formally known as women, are now cervix havers.

That way people with penises can be women.