I think it’s easiest just to go man/woman, boy/girl and add cis/trans if needed.
From a purely language-based perspective (it was my degree and I once did an entire essay on the differences between the words "aim" and "goal") the 'problem', if we're rejecting a focus on biology, that "woman" (and "man") now has no definition.
Currently, "woman" is defined as something like "adult female human being" and "man" means "adult male human being". We don't need to look at "adult", "human" or "being" for this purpose, but a number of dictionaries will then have the differentiating definition of "female" and "male" with a focus on biological characteristics. If we reject the biology for the definition, then we need something else, as the other relevant definitions of "female" and "male" just make it circular (something like "woman or girl"/"man or boy").
I've always had a descriptivist view of language so don't really care how or why people use words as they use them, but if "woman" encompasses both cis- and trans- women (fair enough) then the prefixes
should be redundant. It's for someone far cleverer than me to sort out, but this is where the crux of the 'debate' lies. It's not one I'm particularly interested in because in the majority of cases we know what people mean from the context in which they say it ("literally" now including the definition for "figuratively" a prime example).
I would say a human being with feminine appearance and characteristics.
Is this not where the issue lies? Both "feminine appearance and characteristics" are extremely subjective (the latter in particular), and will vary from culture to culture, country to country, even generation to generation. There is also the fact that there will be plenty of examples of women who, by whatever standards you use to define those two things, match neither, but are women nonetheless.