Can get pregnant => woman is not the same thing as woman => can get pregnant. I think you will find I did not claim more than that, mainly beacuse I don't want to deal with this incredibly stupid, bad faith argument.
Yet, I bet you'd have problem with: "English has a right to a word that means 'a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles' and that word is "rhombus."
Calling genuine questions about your statement 'bad faith' or a 'stupid argument' is a bad look when you communicated incorrectly. I am here out of curiosity and to learn, not to foster any agenda.
Women who can get pregnant is not a vanishingly small subset of women. Moreover, it can be derived from context in pregnancy literature that this is the subset of interest. Using a different word here carries no additional information, unlike specifying a square.
Wrt bad faith, are you really curious about how language works? Or are you just looking for short arguments with long counterarguments. Aka technical knockouts on twitter. It seems like making spurious analogies to mathematical language, or just generally arguing that english words are complicated intersections of unions of properties, and therefore no argument about what words mean can ever be valid, are just intrinsically arguments made in bad faith, and with no regard to what these additional assumptions would do to your own arguments.
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.'"
Does someone stop being a woman if they have a hysterectomy or go through menopause? If someone is born infertile, can they never be a woman?