From this answer by Martin Brandenburg I learned an elegant way of constructing and describing elements of coproducts of monoids. There he writes this construction shows the existence of colimits in every finitary algebraic category. I'm trying to understand the significance of having units, and it seems to me units are actually used in the very final step of the verification that the elements of coproducts are indeed "reduced words".
I'll repeat (hopefully correctly) the construction the coproduct of associative magmas $A,B$. The underlying set will be the set of finite nonempty sequences of elements of $A\amalg B$ (the empty sequences would be a unit) and the operation will be concatenation. The only relations we need to quotient by is $(a_1a_2)\sim (a_1,a_2)$. One can verify this satisfies the universal property of the coproduct.
The next step is to prove the coproduct is isomorphic to the submonoid of reduced words alone. For starters, the submonoid of $A\amalg B$ given by the set of elements of $U(A\amalg B)$ which are products of images of either coproduct injection is isomorphic to $A\amalg B$ because it satisfies the same universal property. Since the coproduct injections are homomorphisms the canonical arrow taking reduced words inside of $U(A\amalg B)$ is surjective, i.e every sequence in $U(A\amalg B)$ has a reduction. To show injectivity we'll prove the reduction is unique.
For this we define an action of $A\amalg B$ on $X$ which imitates concatenation by first formally concatenating and then reducing in $X$. Since an action is just a homomorphism $A\amalg B\to \mathsf{End}(X)$ we use the universal property of the coproduct to define it's "parts". To define the action of $A$ on $X$, let $a\in UA$ and $\mathbf w\in UX$ and define $a\mathbf w$ to be the concatentation of $a$ with $\bf w$ if $\mathbf w$ starts with an element of $UA$, and replace the first coordinate of $\bf w$ with its product with $a$ on left if it starts with an element of $UA$. Similarly for $UB$.
Now the final step: if the magmas are unital then the coproduct needs the empty sequence $()$ to serve as a unit. Then we have evaluation at the empty sequence $\mathsf{End}\to X$, which makes the composite $X\to A\amalg B\to \mathsf{End}X\to X$ equal to the identity. This proves the left arrow is injective as desired.
But what if the magmas aren't unital? Can this approach to describing reduced words be saved? Does absence of units even present a problem? I think everything should still be true...
(I understand that if the magmas are unital we need to force additional relations on the set of sequences.)