Technically concentration camps are not limited to the Nazi regime and are do not nessisarily require actively killing the people inside to fit the definition. The internment of Japanese civilians by the US and Canadian governments in WWII fit the definition of a concentration camp. The North Koreans have political prison camps which also fit the description. The notes of periods stopping in the face of extreme stress an malnutrition have been noted at all of these camps by the doctors who have kept records.

You also made quite the logic leap from someone mentioning menstruation in Concentration camps to assuming they meant a literal camp in Gaza. Gaza isn't a concentration camp... Though the Israeli government has actively throttled supplies to the citizens of the region (including international relief) who cannot immigrate because the neighbouring countries fear Israeli retaliation so you do have a bunch of people who cannot freely move in increasingly unsanitary conditions without access to medical supplies, clean water or fuel to produce clean water and increasing food insecurity in the region has meant that the conditions are primed for a large number of civilians to die... So there are fairly decent parallels in regards to living conditions but the disqualifying difference being largely based around formalized imprisonment.

Not a concentration camp by strict definition and not an "industrial" killing zone like Auschwitz but Auschwitz was very much not the norm for a concentration camp even the ones under Nazi rule so using that as your rubric of "what is a concentration camp" is inherently flawed. Concentration camps are unethical even when they don't exist to slowly and steadily liquidate their populations.

The commonality stated here is the function of the body due to disease and malnutrition. Demanding proof of one very specific presentation of genocide out of a wide range of possible presentations of active genocide seems to be very mich missing the point.

Ah, now I get you.

I don't equate these two situations. I wanted to point at the link between mental distress and physical health that was observed in these camps, IIRC I've read about it in David Frankle's memoir\self-help book first - and he is a survivor of one, that's why I refered to them. And these women are put into critical insecurity and distress too.

By now more than 23k were reported dead, or ≈1% of pre-October estimated population. Not an industrial scale of killing per se, but still a catastrophe. With how many buildings were leveled to the ground (33%) and how many people therefore were displaced, it sure is. Intensity of IDF bombing is pretty much systemic and overly agressive. Would you argue with that?

I think you are overreacting.

I've heard Gaza was called the-camp-in-the-open-air before October, and that wasn't true. It was occupation and segregation, and mass murder wasn't in the menu. Now it's hard to say, hearing all this warmongering and dehumanization. Is it assymetric warfare with a side of suspected warcrimes? A continuous act of terror? A genocide? I don't know. But it seems like Israel hardly cares about palestinians anymore, doesn't want them here and this shelling, military maneuvres are about making it's unlivable here so they'd leave. I don't think civilian\Hamas ratio was even 10:1. Not really a C-T operation.

If you say "why did you say woman twice" in response to "woman and people who menstruate" you're saying that being a woman means you menstruate AND vice versa. That's implying a strict equality between women and those who menstruate, saying that you can't have either without the other.

"Logically" he's saying woman ≡ menstruating person, while you're confusing his comment for woman ⊇ menstruating person. In reality their conditions have no bearing on each other, so neither is right anyways.

Really? Which is X and which is Y in this situation?

I don't take issue with any implication, but find the sentence somewhat unclear because of the phrasing.

Would the sentence have still been true if they had just written 'people'? Wouldn't a lack of access to clean water and other supplies needed for good hygiene increase infections for everyone?

How do you enforce it?