So I have, my apologies.
Though if you agree that they aren’t lying, it’s a bit strange to think that it would be lying when you respond with the same words.
And this is a nifty way to dismiss the real disutilities to the people you’re asking to use them.
And lest you think this is to excuse the lie, in the way that we may think it’s OK to lie to the Nazi at the door (because I think you’ve made it clear that, even though you think it’s a lie, you think it’s an excusable lie because it’s the less harmful option), I would again point to the communicated meaning of the words. Transsexuality is a relatively new development, at least in the US, and still fairly rare (~.6% of the population). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that, on average, describing a transwoman as a “woman” will give your audience a more accurate picture of the world than if you described them as a “transwoman”.
One related point about coining new words that I think is in your favor: I think it would be considered rude or offensive to describe a transwoman as a transwoman. That’s hard to fit with my argument here, because my argument rests on the inability to do so, and so shouldn’t proscribe using that word where one can. And in many contexts where they feel comfortable, trans people to openly describe themselves as trans and aren’t offended by being called trans.
But in many contexts, I think it would be taken as offensive. One response would be that letting a transwoman know that she’s not ‘passing’ is tantamount to letting her know that’s she’s in danger, or just not fitting into social standards for how one ought to appear. Or it may be making genitalia and biology salient in a way that isn’t appropriate (similar to how it can be offensive to discuss sex or genitals or defecation or even disease in many social contexts), since the distinction between a woman and a transwoman is one of genitalia and biology.
Still, I think it’s weird to say both that we should call transwomen “women” because it’s more true, but also we shouldn’t call them transwomen, even though that’s even more true. And I expect that you agree that there’s a tension.
You “observed”, from Latin observare “watch over,” though presumably you didn’t ‘see’ the language get impoverished with your eyes, but inferred it with your reason. “Impoverished”, of course, as I alluded to before, means “to make poor”, but language has no money, it isn’t taking a pay cut when we let the meaning of words change. Perhaps this is another argument on which I’ve “lost the plot”, but this is an argument, not a work of fiction! or did you mean “plot” as in a plot of land? I can assure my title is sound. Perhaps I’m just not seeing this language stuff “clearly”, probably because I’m arguing with pixels on a computer monitor instead of letters shaped from transparent glass. “By the by”, I come at this from a different direction, which says that the expansion of meaning, even if it increases ambiguity in some cases, also greatly enriches our language. You say you disagree, but your words betray you – have them shot at dawn.
I’m not sure how useful this is, but let’s explore it a bit. We agree, I think, that a post-op transman entering the room would be incongruous with the expectation. But I think it would not be so incongruous to see a post-op transwoman, that would be pretty close to my expectation (though admittedly not the paradigm case). So too would a female-presenting android be much closer to my expectation than a post-op trans man; is that not true for you?