But "woman"isn’t a slur. It’s not the most inclusive language, but it’s not terrible.
I have been changing documents i can influence to say things like, “the actuary will…” Instead of “he will” or “he or she will” in an attempt to be trans inclusive. But I’m not on a rampage to strike down every use of “he” that’s intended to cover a random human of unknown gender.
What bad thing do you think will happen if you just use “woman?”
You: “Tomorrow I’m going out with a woman I met.”
Your friend: “Wait, that’s not enough information. Does she have a vagina? Was she even born with one?”
You: “I didn’t ask. I don’t know.”
Your friend: “Don’t you think I’m entitled to know? Find out and get back to me.”
(time passes)
You: “I have the information regarding this person you never met. She was born with a vagina.”
Your friend: “But what’s the word for that? This doesn’t satisfy my demands at all.”
You: “Um… assigned female at birth? Or AFAB for short?”
Your friend: “I ASKED FOR A WORD NOT AN ACRONYM. DON’T COME BACK WITHOUT THE WORD YOU OWE ME.”
I mean… why entertain any part of this silly exchange? Honestly, from your questioning, you sound more like the nosy friend than the affected parties who are just trying to live their lives.
This is the most awesome thing I have read all day. Similar to what I have been thinking of for a long time, that gender and sex are (or rather, should be!) completely irrelevant in our everyday lives. As you say, the only time it truly matters now is finding a partner to have a child. Eventually (when science creates an artificial external uterus) it won’t matter even then. Thanks for posting!
Thank you all. I mean, really… an overwhelming majority of us are satisfied with such specific, intimate narrow details being addressed only when and if they become relevant.
Contrary to what the internet/social media chattersphere may want us to believe, virtually everyone out there in realspace carries on with their lives not being in a state of anxiety about this, and not really feeling it’s their job to police you harshly about it.
Now, there is a difference between saying we need a “word for a human human with a naturally ocurring vagina” and the implication/inference that what is being there should be is “one single unambiguous word with for a human with a naturally ocurring vagina that specifically excludes any other condition or state”. As others have said, I don’t see the need for the latter in everyday language and the language will evolve in that direction if the demand for that specificity arises.
You’re welcome! 
And I can in general answer my own question due to an experiment I began some years ago where I consciously decided to stop using gendered language to the greatest extent possible. I only use gendered pronouns when speaking of specific persons I’m reasonably sure I know the preference of and when speaking in the general try not to put in words that imply gender. The thing is, once you start doing that and policing yourself you become glaringly aware of just how deeply baked in these gender assumptions are in our language and in our society and after it becomes second nature to avoid gendered language it actually does change your mind, literally. Your mind stops trying to pigeonhole people into gender roles, you stop trying to figure out “is that a man or a woman over there” because your brain has been taught that it doesn’t matter. Even something as simple as, when meeting a baby, refusing to ask whether that’s a boy or a girl baby but just greeting them as “Hello, young human!” changes how you move throug the world and you become much more sensitive to how language assumptions can look very unwelcoming or downright threatening to someone further out on the spectrum than is “normal.” I suspect some people rather LIKE making people uncomfortable and don’t want to change their “right” to police gender in the millions of tiny ways our language makes inevitable. Seems kinda mean and small to me, but a lot of people strike me as being rather mean and small so no big surprise I guess.
I’m getting a strong " My Girlfriend Who Lives in Canada" vibe from some of the explanations here.
How so?
I’m not going to give you names and addresses, but in the before times I hung out with a large number of nonbinary and trans people. And, hmm, last Tuesday I helped teach a class in which 2 of the seven students said their preferred pronoun is “they”.
Like every other small group, out trans people cluster, and you may not know any of them. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Oh. Sorry.
I’m seeing “My girlfriend has a real vagina” so as to not look like a homo on some posts.
I may be overreaching.
Moderating:
You are. There was no need to use this slur. It serves only to inflame the discussion. Not a warning at this time, but please don’t do this again. Other mods may feel differently. If they do, a warning may ensue.
To answer the original question:
Under 18 a girl. 18+ a woman. Seems rather simple to me.
As the old saying has it, every question has an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Given the increasing recognition of transgender people’s right to their declared gender identity, it’s just factually incorrect nowadays to assume that the terms “woman” and “girl” necessarily imply “human with a naturally occurring vagina”. Very many people also use the terms “woman” and “girl” to refer to transgender women and girls, who do not have naturally occurring vaginas.
In a similar vein, it used to be a standard assumption that the term “wife” necessarily implied “woman married to a man”, and “husband” necessarily implied “man married to a woman”. Now that the definitions of “husband” and “wife” have been expanded with the advent of gay rights and same-sex marriage, we can’t just assume anymore that they’re always being used in their traditional more restricted meanings.
I mean, it kind of surprises me that after seventy posts in this thread somebody could still not have noticed that the whole point of the OP is that the existence of transgender identity invalidates the simple equation of the gender identifiers “woman” and “girl” with the anatomical characteristic of being born with a vagina.
That’s the reason that the OP suggested we need a new term for that anatomical characteristic in the first place.
As I read the OP question the term “naturally occurring” meant “what God made her” and that’s a girl originally then grown to a woman. No need to overthink it, IMHO.
I think the problem is that you’re underthinking it.
Did you seriously imagine that the OP honestly didn’t know that the extremely common English words “woman” and “girl” have traditionally signified humans with female anatomical sex? Really? Even though the OP is clearly a fluent English speaker?
ISTM pretty obvious that the OP started this whole thread in the first place precisely because the words “woman” and “girl” don’t automatically and universally imply female anatomical sex anymore in English usage.
So there really isn’t much point in unnecessarily reminding the OP of what those words used to mean.
The question was asked, and I gave my response “in my humble opinion”.
But the OP already ruled out your suggested answer way back in post #12:
In other words, since we can no longer assume, for example, that the descriptors “women” and “girls” necessarily imply being anatomically female, we need another term that unambiguously means “anatomically female”.
There’s disagreement in this thread about whether we actually do need any such new term, but AFAICT everybody but you acknowledges that the old terms “women” and “girls” have become too ambiguous to qualify.
As Led Zeppelin said, sometimes words have two meanings.
In the sentence “Men over 50 should get prostate exams” I think we’re all capable of understanding that the meaning of “men” in that sentence might mean something different than it does in a different sentence. The goal of language is to communicate. Using “men” in that instance, everyone knows if they are included in that group or not. I don’t see distinguishing between men and males as helpful because eventually there will be the insistence that males are identified in the same manner as men.
Recently my son and I attended a series of seminars preparing kids for puberty. (My son is 11.). The host kept referring to “people with boy parts” and “people with girl parts” instead of boys and girls. I understand why he did it but still it sounded awkward.
My apologies to all. I was trying to work out why someone would feel it is so necessary to have a simple way to announce that their partner had a “natural” vagina and reverted to phrasing I haven’t used since the 70s.
Yep. If this situation, or any similar version of it arises, it’s not your words that you need to choose more carefully.
It sounds nice, but it also sounds exactly like people who say “I don’t see colour”, and the idea that everyone should ignore race as much as possible - an idea which is currently being rejected as unhelpful to achieving true equality. It would be nice if sex and gender were irrelevant in our everyday lives, but they are not, and given that is the case, I don’t agree that it is a virtue to stigmatise talking about them.