They'd probably respond by saying, well, for one, I don't think the term non men is used to describe people with vulvas from that perspective. I'd assume it operates just like the rest of the terminology, as in, non men meaning someone who identifies as something other than a man.

I don't think a trans man would agree that it's going against that identity to use words like vagina-haver, but I think more common in those communities is assigned female at birth.

I think this post combines GC and TRA logic and rhetoric in a way that does a disservice to both, and can't be regarded as just one. In the framework TRAs have provided, this isn't true, and in the framework that GC has provided, it's probably a little more true but still.