Look, can we admit that 'become' has many meanings? For example-- I can become a lawyer, a father, old, a corpse, 'a lion' (metaphorically), charcoal (by being burned), an amputee, etc.... These are all different meanings of 'become'.
When we say that the bread and wine become body and blood, there are several ways this can be understood. For example, it could be in the same sense that I become a lion, that is metaphorically. We both agree that this is incorrect, right?
Transubstantiation, given that it is a form of change not observed in nature (is that apophatic enough for you?), simply narrows down the type of change that is occurring-- it's not a metaphorical change, a mechanical change, nor a change perceivable by the 5 senses (which would be a change in accidents), but it is a real change . But, the what-it-is does change-- bread and wine become true body and true wine, without some kind of simultaneous continued existence of bread and wine.
So yes, it is important to point out what kind of change occurs, to eliminate potentially heretical understandings of this change, which are common enough over the past 5 centuries, east and west.