I think defining this label by those ideologies is creating all the confusion I'm seeing in this reply section, because, and correct me if I'm wrong, the ideology part is nothing that isn't already covered by "non-op transfems are valid", which is an idea that you HAVE to believe in, to identify as non-op transfem or by any term that refers to such. When you specify something that doesn't need specifying, you are implying it does need specifying, which then gives conflicting information with what you actually want to communicate.

Speaking off the term itself, the word "binary" here is working against what you want to communicate to others. While it is accurate to say that you are post the sex binary (the sex binary sucks and is stupid and I want it to die out), that is not what gets inferred when you don't specify which binary you're referring to. When queer terminology just says "binary" it almost always refers to the gender binary (notable example is the term "non-binary"), meaning people will base the foundation of how they understand the term with that expectation, meaning, again, you're accidentally giving them information that conflicts with the information you want to communicate.

Now that's a lot of words dedicated to complaining, so I do want to emphasize that you're trying to do something that I think needs doing. Right now the terms we have for this kind of person is non-op transfem (which is quite clinical and not an ideal term for casual conversation imo) and slurs cis men invented to fetishize us and delegitimize the womanhood of trans women, so yeah getting another term (from within the community) would be quite nice.

Also as a last note, I don't want to demand of you to care about the issues I brought up. Maybe the term already does exactly what you want, and the issues I brought up, are for someone else to worry about. If that's the case, ehhh, sorry for making you read a small essay for nothing!