So, the term "pregnant women" is sufficient.
The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make their logic consistent. In my opinion, your interpretation is inherently less valuable because, well, you aren't them.
One may wish to look to some one true objective truth. It does not exist. Women and men is not clear-cut and has never been clear-cut. There are those who may have a uterus, ovaries, and XY chromosomes. Or testes and a vagina, with XX ovaries. Or maybe ovaries with XXY chromosomes.
We can hand-wave these people away, sure, but remember - you're competing with a perfectly inclusive term. If you hand-wave those people away then you admit your term isn't perfectly inclusive and is therefore worse, so we're back at square one.
Can you find one true external factor that determines a binary gender for every human who has existed, may exist, or is currently existing, with no exceptions? You may be tempted to answer - but I should warn you, it can, and will, be trivially disputed.
Or, you can skip all of this "pursuit of truth" nonsense and just say "pregnant people", which DOES encompass anyone who is pregnant and who has existed, or may exist, or is currently existing.
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.
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.
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.
No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really.
But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is complicated.
For example, you might call the bank teller "ma'am". Did you examine her reproductive organs? No, right? So this should be impossible - how did you know she was a woman?
Because, regardless of what bumbling idiots on the internet will claim, gender is inherently a social construct. You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things. Your brain then computes these all together and you determine "woman". But, she could have a penis.
In fact, just statistically speaking, you've encountered many women with penises and you will never know who they are, because they are women by your own perception. The same goes with men. Whether you choose to acknowledge this or remain a bumbling idiot, I do not care. This conversation is stupid, and frankly beneath me.
As for your view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup", this is a remarkably sexist perspective and I would urge you to rethink your understanding on this as well.
You replied with: "No, no you can't."
From this, it is reasonable to assume that you either you don't understand that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system, or that you don't understand what the female reproductive system is.
You wrote: "You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things."
From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup.
If you don't like the ideas that your words convey, that's on you for writing them.
> From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup.
The person you are responding to was identifying the markers that cause the average person to make a snap decision on whether someone is a "he" or a "she" when encountering complete strangers on a day to day basis. If you don't use these factors to determine how you would address a person you've never met, what do you use? Do you demand to see their genitals or birth certificate?
That's why, for instance, someone like Caitlyn Jenner can pop on a dress, slap on a bit of makeup, call himself a woman, and get given a "Woman Of The Year" award while a surprisingly large number of people cheer this on. Though not everyone, thankfully. There are plenty of sensible folk who see through this nonsense.
If it wasn't for sexism, trans ideological beliefs would have gotten nowhere.
This is how we can, in most cases, ascertain a person's sex regardless of how they're attired.
It's also why the other commenter's view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup" is so absurd. A change of clothes, a haircut, and wiping off makeup doesn't somehow change women to men, or remove the ability of others to recognize sex.
Also, even if a person manages to disguise their sex or impersonate the opposite sex, this doesn't change the reality of their sex. Just may obscure it from observation, for some observers.
A mistaken assumption doesn't change the underlying reality.
If she hadn't taken the cat to the vet and hadn't otherwise realized that the cat is female, and later, the cat had become pregnant, then she wouldn't be exclaiming how amazing it is to see a male pregnancy. No, she would understand that the cat is female, because only female cats can be pregnant.
The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons.
Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.