"A subset of women"

[JellySlice]

The statement "black women are a subset of women" appears to cause offence, but I don't understand why. Surely black women are a subset of women in the same way as Jewish women, Polish women, refugee women and diabetic women are subsets of women? Isn't that what intersectional feminism is about?

Is this statement offensive on its own, or only when hijacked by the AWA TRAs?

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.

I don’t think it’s offensiven on its own - I take issue with it as the one thing that black women, Jewish women, diabetic women all have in common is that they are women.

Transwomen are a subset of woman doesn’t make sense as men cannot be a subset of woman - we can try to get rid of the gender binary (either the binary of stereotypes or the cis/trans binary) but it is a material reality that the binary of sex remains.

You however are an idiot!!

The OP has clearly stated black women are a subset of women, a totally racist statement and a totally untrue statement. Calling them an idiot doesn't actually reflect how much my blood is boiling Barbie.

I think it’s probably important that someone better equipped than myself, explain to op what she so obviously doesn’t understand.

Black women are women it doesn’t require further qualification.

It's offensive when TRAs lump transwomen in with black women as comparable subsets. For starters, TRAs don't give a fuck about the issues of black women, they are just a useful pawn for TRAs to use in their arguments.

Black women are women. I am not a black woman because I'm not black. I'm not a transwoman because I'm not male.

Your prejudice is showing, OP. Using black women as a pawn in your argument is disgustingly racist.

There is no such thing as a subset of women. You are either a woman or your not.

They never say white women are a subset of women. They see white as the default.

They are women.
If you use a descriptor before the word women it does not make that person a subset of woman! To be a woman is to be an adult human female.

All over twitter you see the argument that TW are a subset of women because black women are. Its false, untrue, not fact and said only to gaslight.
You rarely hear it said for black men/Jewish men/transmen.

But blackwomen are a subset of women (trans women aren’t). Do people think subset means something it doesnt? This thread is confusing

Women are women

No subsets

The problem comes when you consider the full argument:

"black women are a subset of women" "in the same way that transwomen are a subset of women".

But blackwomen are a subset of women (trans women aren’t). Do people think subset means something it doesnt?

We are all humans. Would you say black people are a subset of humans?
If not why not?

Are all blonde women are a subset of women or is a woman who happens to be blonde? A woman can happen to be black.

I'm not erasing the specific history of black women, dismissing the challenges that they face growing up or comparing them to blonde women.

Both are born with a physical characteristic but one (skin colour) defines their life more than the other (hair colour). It's not right but it happens.

There are not subsets of women or men, all are defined by biological sex they just have another defining biological feature that means they also belong in another group or description. You can't get away from that.

As trans women are not women they belong in a group of men, men who like wearing dresses or maybe men who get turned on by wearing a dress or even men who have gender dysphoria and believe they are women, or men who have chosen castration to improve their mental health. All are men and have no direct biological connection to women other than their mothers.

I'm a bit confused too @RiddleyW I assume we're missing some nuance about trans women even though I didn't see op actually mention that,
Women are women.
But it's not offensive to say within the broad category of women there are subsets, for example so are Mother's, some are pensioners, some work, some are diabetic, some are white.

That's surely not offensive? More than one element of your identity can be important, and saying someone is an Asian woman or white woman doesn't take away from the fact that all women are women for goodness sake

Trans women are a subset of men.

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.

This. Its important to identify who, within the group 'woman', may be subject to more oppression for whatever reason, isn't it? As the OP says, that is what intersectional feminism is about isn't it, ensuring that all the 'subsets' are included? Otherwise it's a bit like saying 'I don't see colour' and ignoring the issues.

Is it a problem with the word 'subset' as it sounds inferior? It just means 'a group within a group' doesn't it?

Genuine questions by the way, I want to learn!

I don’t understand either.

How are these not a subset of women:

Women with red hair
Post menopausal women
White women
Women of a healthy weight
Women with high blood pressure
Black women
Women who have not given birth

Etc?

I’m probably missing something, but I don’t see what.

We are all humans. Would you say black people are a subset of humans?

Yes this would be true - I can’t imagine the context I’d say it, it’s weird phrasing but it’s correct.

Oh yeah - is it because it includes the word sub so sounds like it means inferior group or something? It really doesn’t.

The background of this argument is that it is always trotted out by TRAs as a "gotcha" to prove twaw. It is deeply racist and offensive. As pp have said, nobody ever uses different examples for the twaw argument.

I can see both sides. I would say finches are a subset of birds. That means finches are definitely birds, but not all birds are finches. To me, subset means ‘contained within, but not the whole’.

I can see the argument that other people may see/hear the phrase differently though.