Translation:I do not wash my clothes in fall and winter.
LOL I get you. The topic vs subject marker conflict is not easy to reconcile for those steeped in grammatical form in other languages. All I can advise is that by now in level 8, ye jes gotta get o'er it.
For those who try to reassure you that all you have to do is think of the focus of the sentence, ask them why then the object (clothes) is not the topic marker in "I wash my clothes" but it is with "I like clothes". Ask them why 'he' is the topic marker in "He washes clothes in the spring" but "In the spring" is the topic marker in "I wash clothes in the spring"
Isn't this what we want from studying other languages - challenge?
“Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca
It's not weird - people call は the topic marker, partly because subject is a confusing term
The agent (the thing performing the verb action) is 私, omitted because it's implied as usual. I'm the one (not) doing the washing.
But the topic or context is あきとふゆ - we're talking about autumn and winter. And in that context, here's some information about something that happens - you're being specific about a certain time, and describing something about it.
Arguably the grammatical subject here is ふく, because that's the focus of the sentence - it's like a passive sentence, "in autumn and winter the clothes aren't washed (by me)". Sometimes it's the agent too - but that's distinct from stating the context of the sentence
That's why subject isn't always a great term to use when you're talking about particles - Japanese just does things differently, and the thing put into context by は isn't necessarily the thing performing the action, or even the thing the sentence is about. But it can be! This is where all the nuances about は and が and other particles come in, when you do and don't use them
telemetry ふく is definitely NOT the subject of this sentence を following ふく and thus marking it as the direct object of the verb/washing makes that clear. Also this sentence is NOT passive - the verb is present active. Japanese has passive voice forms for verbs - in this case it would 洗われる or 洗われます. In a passive sentence the object of the active sentence becomes the subject.
ふく is definitely not the subject of the sentence. Winter can't wash clothes (maybe if it rains on them I guess) so it can't it wash them either.
Subject and topic are not the same thing, though they very often are, especially in a course like this. Here the subject of the sentence is the implied "I" while the topic is "autumn and winter".
Winter the subject?? Very arguably, I'd say - in syntactic terms, a subject is not just a semantic term. It is even arguable as to what the semantic topic is ( ie winter or clothes?). You assert it isn't weird but then admit all kinds of 'nuances' and contexts that contradict your explanation.
Look, the point is that for learners, it is weird, but for Japanese and perhaps similar languages, it isn't, so relish that weirdness.
The English translation though could use the word "or" to imply the action taking place in both, but not simultaneously (obviously the case since winter/fall are two separate times) I do not wash my clothes in the fall or winter I do not wash my clothes in the fall and winter To me, the first feels a bit more natural in English, even though it would be hard to point to the word "or" in the given Japanese. Another way to look at it is "I do not wash my clothes in the fall, nor do I wash my clothes in the winter" Shortened to "I do not wash my clothes in the fall nor the winter" Shortened again to "I do not wash my clothes in fall or winter" Obviously the first of the three is stating a lot plainly that is implied by the other two.
This is more of a peculiarity of English though, and how we change words around when the sentence becomes negative - you wouldn't say "I (do) wash my clothes in the fall or winter" because that implies one or the other, instead of both which is what and means
So the translation should accept or as an answer in English, since it's a natural way to phrase it, but that's actually a variation on and - that's the meaning carried by the sentence.