[ciiiicii]

Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words.

Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact.

Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.

[consteval]

> Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman.

Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman.

I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convince people who do not have the mental capacity to understand what I’m saying.

[ciiiicii]

Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman.

Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man.

You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that has individuals with different reproductive roles. For example: consider a chicken. This chicken lays eggs. From this we know that this chicken has a female reproductive system. Therefore this chicken must be a hen, not a cock.