Given that any number of Orthodox catechisms and symbolic books have used the word transubstantiation, I am comfortable with the term. Do I believe the usage of the term is a commitment to the entirity of Aristotle's philosophy, or less still, Roman Catholic scholasticism? Of course not, and I do not think that is how the Orthodox who took advantage of this useful term thought about it either - since they still professed ideas and in did things in the area of praxis which go well beyond what the strict, RC "dogmatic definition" of transubstantiation would allow for or mandate.
For example, the RC teaching is that once the "accidents" break down (which doesn't take long in the stomach), the Christ is no longer "substantially present." While it's true scholasticism was not totally beholden to Aristotelianism, in this case it seems to have been. According to Orthodox tradition, not only is this not the case, but there is actually a mingling of the body and blood of the communicant with that of our Lord after receiving Holy Communion. That doesn't "fit" into the RC definition.
I think the term "transubstantiation" is useful, in a basic way - the "substance" (understood as the "whatness" of the bread and wine) is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, while the appearances (as far as all of our physical senses are concerned - sight, taste, smell, sound, texture) remain those of bread and wine.
I have to agree with Anastasios, regarding attempts by some to equate Orthodoxy with a sort of theological ludditism. What does separate Orthodoxy from Catholicism, is more in the realm of "extremes" when it comes to depending on the abilities of logic and language to define mysteries - but not that any sort of description is impossible. That Orthodoxy does not have a universal description of the change of the Holy Gifts, has more to do with it never being a widely doubted matter in the Orthodox-Eastern context, than the absolute impossibility of the Church adopting a universal, uniform way of speaking on this subject.