You just did what you are mad about.
You should have said “ANY woman who can bear a a child menstruates”
No, it isn’t: you mathed wrong there. [ETA: As you noticed yourself in post #99, good catch.]
Because it represents a non-zero measurement of a real-life phenomenon, duh. So if we’re going to discuss its existence, we should talk about it using accurate terms.
As I said before, the chief function of language is to talk about reality. The reality is that some people who get pregnant and give birth are transgender men, and they prefer not to be called “women”.
Why are you now fussing again about the boogeyman of “changing our language”? What happened to your declaration as recently as post #88 that you are “fine” with referring to either “pregnant people” or “pregnant women”?
Why is it now suddenly bothering you again that we sometimes acknowledge the real-life existence of an approximately 0.017% minority of transgender men in the population of pregnant people by referring to “pregnant people” rather than “pregnant women”?
Do you have any idea what point you’re trying to make here?
What? (really…what?)
Go back to the OP.
Apply all you have learned in this thread and respond.
And any “person” who who bears a child…
Your so close to understanding
What?
So what? If the hypothetical person with male anatomy whom I raised as a son came out as trans and identified as female, then I would acknowledge her as my daughter. The fact that she would never menstruate or get pregnant would not change her gender identification as a (transgender) woman.
And of course, if I had a cisgender daughter who for medical reasons never menstruated or got pregnant either, that wouldn’t change her gender identification as a woman.
Likewise, if I had a female-assigned child whom I raised as a daughter who came out as transgender with a male identity, then as far as I’m concerned, he would be a (transgender) man, and my son. If he at some point got pregnant and had a baby, that wouldn’t change his male gender identity.
None of this is in any way denying biology. It’s simply recognizing that anatomical biology is not the same thing as gender identity.
Having done so, I came to a pretty self-evident conclusion:
No, you have no idea what point you’re trying to make here.
Think it through…If any “Person” who can bear a child menstruates…
What point do you think I am making?
You don’t like the language police. I wouldn’t disagree with that though we might differ in details.
That’s…really pretty good.
Sadly, you got @Kimstu off the hook. 
Literally no one is policing your language.
I’ve concluded that you have no point other than that the OP makes you mad for reasons you can’t express in your posts.
The OP is literally about language.
If not, what do you think the discussion is about?
You don’t have a point, AFAICT.
Yeah, and nobody is policing yours. The only person doing any substantial “language policing” in this thread is you. E.g., when you whine that my referring to “pregnant people” rather than “pregnant women” is unjustified because pregnant men are only 0.017% of the total, so that’s somehow not “sufficient to change our language”.
Like I need to meet your arbitrary criteria for some kind of quantitative “sufficiency” before I can use the term “pregnant people”.
As usual, people who are somehow bothered by inclusive language use are engaging in way more pestering of the inclusive-language proponents than vice versa.
Neat. We can both do that.
You don’t have a point, AFAICT.
Easy-peasy.
You pointed out I didn’t use your numbers then are mad I used your numbers.
Pregnant is a binary thing. There is no “criteria”. You are or you are not. What are you on about with this?
You still have not answered my previous question.
In completely different contexts, I have at times referred to various plural batches of people who happened to all be of the same sex (and/or gender) as “dancing people” or “typing people” or “fishing folks” or whatever. Not because I felt a need to avoid offending some (hypothetical or otherwise) minority within them who don’t identify in that manner, but because their man-ness or woman-ness didn’t seem particularly relevant even though they were all of the same flavor (or appeared to me to be at any rate).
Seems to me, in that same spirit, the pregnant people are in fact pregnant people whether each and every one of them is a woman or not.
Why do say
What is the difference between pregnant people and any person who can bear a child.
I really am not understanding the question.
The above was posted after what I posted above.
I honestly do not know how to answer this question.
I wish we could both make coherent reasoned arguments, because I’m getting rather tired of being the only one of us who can.
If you can manage to remember what your previous question was, feel free to ask it again.
Hubris, thy name is @Kimstu