"A subset of women"

Yes, it's important to be very clear about why we are discussing this - because AWAs have rhetorical trick whereby they make a false analogy. They compare one categorization of people with another categorization of people, and say that because one categorization exists, the other must logically exist too.

Aside from the utterly offensive nature of choosing black women as a group by which to prove that the group of men who believe they are women are analogous that has been discussed extensively on the thread, it's also logical nonsense.

Putting a random prefix on a word for a category doesn't create an equivalence between the random new prefixed word and all other variants of the term.

Black women, white women, etc. are members of the category 'women' first - the prefix doesn't do anything to affect their membership of that category. If I were to postulate the existence of 'Tree-women', I could argue until I was blue in the face that a sycamore is just a subset of the category 'woman' because I had chosen to define certain trees as women, but my analogy would be false, meaningless, and probably offensive if I used it in such a way to prove that a non-sentient plant was just as much a woman as a particularly oppressed actual member of the larger group 'Women'.

Categories are very useful things. AWAs have us all chasing our tails with this bullshit shell game whereby they invent categories and challenge us to defend reality from their onslaught of Lewis Carroll style gobbledygook. They can do one.

Bottom line here, this is only requiring more than scornful dismissal if you accept TWAW. If you don't, you just point out their racism, and go about your day.

As a diabetic black woman am I subset of a subset?

To answer your original question, I find the use of the word 'subset' offensive.

I don't mean the handmaidenly version of feminism, but the feminism that recognises the additional challenges that any woman faces when she is not part of the established 'default' woman.

You are confusing two different things. All women are part of the 'default' category 'woman'. This is a biological category where the primary characteristics are those factors that make up a biological woman. Within this overall 'set' of biological 'woman' there are different groups of women who may be classified according to secondary characteristics. These are characteristics that distinguish the members of the overall set from each other but do not in any way affect the basic primary characteristic.

The secondary characteristics can range from such things as hair colour to life-changing disabilities. These secondary characteristics can really affect the way that people experience life and if society is set up in such a way as it ignores these characteristics then the quality of life of the individual can be adversely affected. So, we cannot treat all members of the set'woman' as if they are identical. They merely share their basic identifying characteristic.

This has led to a great deal of argument about the rights of different 'subsets' within the overall 'set'. The trans activists have tried to slide themselves into this range of groups so that their basic membership of the overall set will not be questioned. This is why biological men have started turning up at women's refuges.

Trans activism has nothing to do with intersectional feminism. There is nothing wrong in talking about subsets of anything provided the thing talked about is a member of the set of which it is supposed to be a part.

That apart, it's clinical language that I don't like at all.

Nobody talked about 'subsets of women' until TRAs came along.

This. Because it's an attempt to legitimise that some women have blue eyes, some women are disabled, some women are.... men.

No, they're really not.

It's also about the attempt to legitimise their demand for inclusion having included appropriating the narrative of racial segregation and suggesting their experience is the same. Which is very offensive.

We need to not accept the creep of this kind of language. There is zero reason to make statements like the OP has. It just needs to stop.

What terminology did feminists use to express the need for intersectional feminism?

Category? Or more in terms of 'factors' leading to oppression?

That said, I'm taking on board that for people who have not come across subset in this context before, it can be taken in a different way than it was intended.

Kimberle Crenshaw 'I understand that we can all stand together as long as we think that we are all equally affected by a particular discrimination, but the moment where a different barrier affects a subset of us, our solidarity often falls apart'

I would be interested particularly in the phrasing used by materialist feminists working in the social sciences who need to analyse quantitative data.

Nancy Fraser?

Nobody needed to, until the non women decided to shoehorn themselves in.

Nobody talked about 'subsets of women' until TRAs came along.

Exactly.

I've never used the word outside of a maths lesson.

I suppose it's one of the fucking shite new words we are all supposed be in thrall to like that cis bollocks.

Geldings are a subset of horses

...and I can tell you that's a very touchy subject among the various subsets that I mix in.

The problem for me is when males are presented as a subset of women and then a false equivalence is drawn with actual subsets of women who experience additional oppression such as black women.

Yup, this exactly.

I can comprehend why 'white women are a subset of women' causes me no qualms, but 'black women are a subset of women' offends some black women. ('trans women are women' is an untrue statement)

I'm not at all "offended" by the statement but I have a colossal need to clarify that white women are also a subset!

What other meaning could subset have

The definition of 'subset' is perfectly clear. I write software, I use subsets for various purposes regularly.

However, the way this word is being used is loaded. It may be a deliberate implication on the part of the speaker, or an inference on the part of the hearer.

I can comprehend why 'white women are a subset of women' causes me no qualms, but 'black women are a subset of women' offends some black women. ('trans women are women' is an untrue statement)

White women are exactly the same kind of subset of women as black women are, speaking about category.

Male people are never a subset of women.

Submariners are not inferior to other sailors!

What other meaning could subset have

THE word wicked means wicked except when it means great..context matters with words

The phrase subhuman was often used to describe black people, so it’s not surprising that subset could easily bepercieved as having negative implications

Trans "women" do not have the xx chromosomes that would gain them access to the set "woman". So, to compare trans women to black women is hate speech and should be reported as such to the relevant authorities.

This X a million.

Now I’ve rtft...

Would you describe Bob Marley as a sub-set of Human?

I have no idea what the fuck this comment is about, randomly bringing Bob Marley into the discussion - but it’s gloriously bonkers.

It’s always nice to think about Bob Marley. I hadn’t thought about Bob Marley all week

Yet another example of why we need better science and mathematics education in this country.

It’s like saying mixed raced people are a subset of black people and they certainly are not a subset

That's quite interesting because it depends who you ask. Black women are categorically a subset of woman regardless of how you define blackness but mixed race people may or may not be a category of black people.

Not sure that moves the discussion anywhere though.

Unless I have misunderstood, trans activists have stated that they are a subset of women in the same way that black women are. This is not what the OP said or thinks. All we need to know is how to respond to trans activists who say this. That is black women are true members of the category "woman" - they have the primary characteristic of xx chromosomes that give them access to this group in the same way as white women, women with green eyes and so on. Trans "women" do not have the xx chromosomes that would gain them access to the set "woman". So, to compare trans women to black women is hate speech and should be reported as such to the relevant authorities.

Those people who are coming on here with complicated Venn diagrams and the like should be viewed with suspicion - this is not a complicated issue

I refuse to fall prey to any tactic which says
Ignore these facts - they hurt feelings, never mention them.

Or, ignore these categories, these subcategories, these intersections, these criteria.

There is nothing to be feared from knowledge itself. Nor categories, groups, criteria, distinctions.
Only whether these are used to do harm or good.

Recognising meaningful similarities and distinctions between people is really, really important.
Ascribing value and worth unfairly is what needs to be dismantled.