I have no problem with a term that includes both cis and trans women and another that includes both cis and trans men. (Yes, I know some object to cis, but I think I need to use it here to bridge audience definitions.)
But here's a bit of a problem. The terms that have been selected for the above are not new terms that were never used before. They had meanings previously that were not gender terms. Further, laws have been written using those terms. When those laws were written, they were not gender terms. They were sex terms.
When you read a law that was written in, say, 2000 and it uses the term "women" what group of people does it refer to? At the time, it meant "adult human females." A law written today may mean "cis women or trans women," but that is a different group of people from what was referred to in the law.
If you say that previous laws that contain the word women are now to be interpreted by the new definition, you aren't updating language, you are changing the law without passing legislation to do so. Do you think it should be acceptable to change laws without passing legislation?
When you say the sign on the women's room now refers to gender and not sex, that's also retroactively changing meanings. To reflect the change in language without changing meanings you would have to replace every use of the word "woman" with the word "female."
Now, arguably, there are some instances where the group referred to should be gender based. But there are also instances where the group referred to should be sex based.
It doesn't work to just say "This word has a new meaning" and automatically apply that new meaning in every usage. And one should be careful doing so even with future usage as the older meaning has not yet been removed from common usage."
No politician ever got fat and happy by solving the problems that got them elected.
