Women who cannot get pregnant is not a vanishingly small subset of women. There are many XX women who cannot get pregnant who are subject to a cruel assessment

Women who cannot get pregnant is not a vanishingly small subset of women. There are many XX women who cannot get pregnant who are subject to a cruel assessment that their value and identity as women is severely impacted. There are several such women in my life, and they are important to me. This is a very real thing and you are eliding it with a clumsy and goofy spew about the rights a language has or the suggestion that concern about it is bad faith twitter argument. Honestly, that sounds like projection. I didn't realize I had to say this so explicitly. The way you wrote your comment indicated that the definition of 'woman' is someone who can get pregnant. If this is not what you intended to communicate, then your wording is at fault. I responded by questioning the argument. I asked, based on what you wrote, what that meant to you as far as 'biological' women who are not able to get pregnant. There was no trap of logic, no pedantry, no counterargument. I asked questions about what you meant. And yes, I am genuinely curious how someone who argues that women=fertile person would categorize my friend who had her reproductive organs removed as a child. The "spurious analogy to mathematical language" was an attempt to efficiently illustrate the meaning of your own words as written based on an understanding I assumed you would have. Further, it genuinely reads to me that you're claiming no argument can ever be valid unless you cannot be questioned when saying "the English word for 'roasted bird' is 'chicken.'"