They aren't medusozoa but they absolutely are jellyfish, as is plainly evident from the way they are. Incidentally, activists are also trying to rename those which you call jellyfish to be "sea jellies", part of a broad campaign to restrict the meaning of fish, traditionally a colloquial term dating back millennia, to mean only particular kinds of swimming vertebrates. It is unscientific political activism and consequently the best they can accomplish is a paraphyletic group which excludes tetrapods, even those that have fully aquatic lifestyles, while simultaneously excluding all manner of aquatic animal that has traditionally been called a fish without anybody confusing it for a vertebrate (jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc.) This linguistic prescriptivism can all be traced back to Carl Linnaeus.
I think you're attributing this to "woke," while the only thing this has in common with something most other people would call "woke" is a penchant for linguistic prescriptivism. I think very very few people see jellyfish as in any way political.
The attempts to erase the colloquial meaning of "fish" are most likely motivated by the goal of protecting whales and dolphins from people, by trying to create a linguistic divide between cetaceans and the sort of fish that most of the world casually eats. That's why, more than any other colloquial use of the word fish, calling a whale a fish seems to get people riled up the most.
While the cause is noble, the means by which they're going about it is wrong. It's cultural and linguistic vandalism. Quintessential wokism.
