Thos are poor analogies because none of them started out as electronic things. Adding the word 'electronic' created a whole new version of that thing.
Oh look - more selective ignoring.
What about "guinea pig" and "bus conductor"? Are they poor analogies also?
But transformers already are electronic.
Not really. They are electronic components, but not electronic devices. A brick is a house component, it is not a house device.
Adding the word 'electronic' tells you nothing new
Yes it does - it tells you that this is not a transformer, it is an electronic transformer.
It doesn't distinguish reliably between a transformer which is an electronic component, and an SMPS.
Yes it does.
A transformer is a transformer.
An electronic transformer is something different - the word "electronic" was added to name something different from a transformer. So it distinguishes perfectly between a transformer and a {something} transformer.
Those who know, and understand, and need to know that an electronic transformer is a SMPS know and understand that.
To those don't know, or understand, and who don't need to know it doesn't matter
It's like saying 'electronic capacitor'. Why does it mean? A capacitor? More than a capacitor? If so, is it functionally identical, or just kinda similar in some ways but not others? Sure, the name is linguistically correct, but at best it is uninformative, and at worst misleading.
It might be neither had there already been something called a capacitor and we needed to call it an "electronic capacitor" to distinguish it.
If something were to be newly termed a "{whatever} capacitor", and people started calling it simply a "capacitor" in contexts where confusion could arise, then maybe "electronic capacitor" might become a good term to use.
Note, at no time have I ever said that it's OK to call one of these a transformer
I say it is OK to call it an electronic transformer. Because that is what it is called.