Thing is, though, phrases like “menstruating people”, or “people with uteruses”, or “people with cervixes” (I’ve had a doctor use the latter phrase during an exam) do sound kind of like reducing people to body parts? Some people don’t mind, especially if they know why it’s being used, but for others it sounds a bit dehumanizing. And in my experience, cis men usually get exempt from this sort of language, which looks kind of bad? In the future when we have 30 semi-official genders and mix and match body parts, there won’t be any other choice, but for now, it falls under “well-meaning, but not yet clear if it’s an actual improvement.”
That being said, the loudest complaints are coming from TERF and TERF-adjacent women who claim such traits as being inherent and exclusive to womanhood. So if one goes out of their way to avoid using the word “woman” when you’re talking about physical traits generally seen only in AFAB people, then it’s “erasing womanhood”. It’s not, but it *is* invalidating their identity. We probably *should* be invalidating their identities, because the way they frame it is so toxic. So I’m tempted to say that it’s a net positive for that reason alone.