"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?

Langcleg thank you for posting that video. I have not had the chance to read the article and probably won't today, but I think I see where some of the confusion is coming from.

At around 20. 00 Kimberle says

"we talk about all women of colour, we talk about cis, transgender women, we talk about queer women and straight women. We are talking about the variety of ways that our understanding about what sexism, patriarchy, heteronormativity, transphobia, racism looks like when it is embodied in people who are dealing with all of these issues at the same time."

So, the person who began using the term subset in order to talk about the experiences of different groups appears to be including transgender women within the subset of black women whether this group be seen as a a subset of black people or of women. This may not be what she means but it is at the very least unclear.

This was filmed in 2016 and by this time she says that she has done 10 townhall meetings throughout America where she is presumably spreading this idea.

neurotrash I think you may have got your intersections and unions confused.
If set A is women and set B is white people, those can be represented as two partially overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. The union is everyone who is either female or white or both, represented by the whole area covered by both circles together. The intersection is everyone who is in both sets at once i.e. white women, represented by the little overlap between the two circles. The fact that white women are a subset of women is represented by the overlap being contained within the women circle A. The fact that white women are a subset of white people is represented by the overlap being contained within the white people circle B.

Perhaps this is where some if the confusion comes from, A is a subset of B means everything in A is also in B, i.e. fills all the requirements to be a member of B. It does NOT mean that things in A fill a subset of the requirements to be a member of B.

I started to avoid this thread after it seemed to go weird, but thought of it yesterday when I read about how maternal mortality of black American women was 3 to 4 times higher than white women, and I mused on how important it is to be able to subdivide the primary group 'woman' into smaller groups in order to address inequality and talk explicitly about the needs of that particular group.

If fuckwits decide they want to make it harder to use meaningful language by poisoning words I'm afraid I don't intend to cooperate.
I don't cooperate by giving up the word woman (oh, don't you know it no longer means just biology, it's taken on a social meaning - nope, and I'll carry on using it correctly thanks) , and I won't with the word subgroup. I'm not throwing either away because others are imbuing them with unnecessary negative connotations. On the contrary, I'll carry on using them correctly so long as they have value and I'll criticise their misuse instead. I do my best to be sensitive, but if I'm spending more time worrying whether a perfectly neutral word is being purposefully or accidentally misunderstood instead of talking about the matter in hand then things have derailed.

Every time we cede a useful word because someone used it wrongly, or misunderstood it and we think it's now tainted, it gets harder to talk about things that matter.
Which is absofuckinlutely the objective of plenty of people who bear ill will to women. To make it too hard to discuss what matters to women because we're constantly tripping over permitted and taboo words.

Feck that.

There's work to be done.

I started to avoid this thread after it seemed to go weird, but thought of it yesterday when I read about how maternal mortality of <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-47115305" target="_blank">black American women was 3 to 4 times higher than white womenn*, and I mused on how important it is to be able to subdivide the primary group 'woman' into smaller groups in order to address inequality and talk explicitly about the needs of that particular group.

Oh look, you managed to get your message across without using the word in question.

We are talking about "subset" not "subgroup" anyway.

Who is the fuckwit?

I literally self-edited to appease for the purposes of this thread alone.
Wrote it, then deleted it, losing clarity and brevity in the process.
For this thread only, in an attempt to show willing and perhaps persuade others to stop purposefully finding offence where none is intended.
An attempt to demonstrate that a word with functional value should not be abandoned to satisfy people who are determined to misuse it.

Completely useful word, rendered harder to use by those determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm sorry, but subgroups/subsets/subdivisions exist and in certain contexts they matter very much. We need to be able to talk about them in the correct context.

MATHEMATICS

Thank you for finding that.

I said that ages ago.

I get what PPs mean about importance of specific terminology but it doesn't take much to use it sensitively. My issue is, as pointed out by a few PPs that when there's discussions of subsets of women, black women are used as the example almost exclusively. It just seems like 'othering' when your race/heritage appears to be the only one used as an example of 'not the default' again and again and again. Coupled with ongoing racism BAME women face (I am one) I'm not surprised that black women are tired of this. I'm happy to use different terminology to not further offend women who have and still do face an unfair amount of crap.

Yes third you're right, apologies. (That's what happens when looking after kids at the same time.) But it's still not a subset as far as I can tell?

I found this (in coding...!)

I don't understand a single thing beyond the 6th set of brackets.

Difference between intersection and subset?*
*

I think your confusion stems from a lack of understanding the difference between a subset and the intersection of two sets. An intersection between two sets is all the elements the sets have in common. For example, let's say we have two sets, A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} and B = {1,3,5,7,9, 100}. The intersection of these two sets is 1,3,5,7,9. A subset is probably best defined using examples. An example of a subset of set A from above would be {1,2,3} or {1} or {3,7,9} or even {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}, but set B is NOT a subset of set A because B contains a number that's not in set A. So, the reason intersection works is because we're looking for keys in COURSES whose corresponding set in COURSES.values() has an element that is shared in the set arg. EX: if arg is {"booleans","coffee cup"} then we want our function to return ["Python basics","Java Basics", "PHP basics"] because the intersection between arg and COURSES.values() is {"booleans"}. Now if we had used the subset function, our function would have returned [] because arg is not a subset of any of the sets in COURSES because arg contains an element that is not in the sets in COURSES, namely "coffee cup". However, if arg is just {"booleans"}, then {"booleans"} is the intersection of the two sets and arg is also a subset of some of the sets in COURSES.
I hope that cleared things up a little.

https://teamtreehouse.com/community/difference-between-intersection-and-subset

I prefer the term "multiple oppressions". Intersectionality, somehow manages to hide what it's really about, which is women facing numbers of disadvantages and harms because they are women, because they are lesbian, because they come from an ethnic minority, because they are disabled, because they are poor and so on . I find the term "intersectionailty" too abstract. It's better to name what is going on in more concrete terms.

I prefer the term "multiple oppressions".

Yes, I think you're right.

Neurotrash, I think the coding example is more complicated than you need. Intersection and subset are different kinds of things. Taking the intersection of A and B is a way to form a third set from sets A and B. The intersection of A and B is the set of all elements (in my example people) in A who are also in B. So every woman who is also white.

Subset is more a relation between two sets. Any set C is a subset of B if every element (in our example every person) in C is also in B.

In particular the intersection satisfies that property: every element of (A intersect B) is an element of B, i.e. every white woman is also a white person. Same goes the other way round, the intersection is also a subset of A. You could even define it that way: the intersection of A and B is the largest possible subset of A which is also a subset of B.

In the Venn diagram the fact that the intersection is a subset is represented by the fact that the overlap bit does not go outside the original circle representing B. (Or indeed A.)

It is offensive because inevitable in a discussion about trans people someone will claim "trans are women like black women are women", referring to both as a subset of women. Completely failing to see that they could just as easily have said white women instead of black to make the same (wrong) point thus revealing their subconscious race bias.

They could equally be revealing their desire to draw a (false) comparison with another minority group of women in the UK numbers-wise. White women are a majority so it doesn't work as a substitute.

So subset... sounds cruel to those not immersed in STEM or related fields. I believe the TRA use of subsets is to subvert our (women's) solidarity, to push us apart based on false equivalences.

That is fucked, their rhetoric is not only categorically wrong it is attempting to further marginalize a group of XX humans by conflating them with XY humans.

Don't let the TRA manipulate and take from us a clearly defined theory (set theory) like they are trying to redefine and take 'woman/women'.

Their agenda is to apply fuzzy set theory to the human sex to confuse laypersons - it is a useful aid in bioinformatics (genomics in this case e.g. 23andme kits). Women, men, and intersex are bivalent (true or false, they do belong to one of those human subsets). In fuzzy set theory women, men, intersex are crisp sets and can be members of fuzzy sets (uncertain or sometimes varying degrees of membership, not true or false but on a spectrum). Fuzzy sets consider membership to certain groups within crisp sets. E.g. I am a woman (crisp set as value is undeniably true I have XX) and I have a mixed ancestry (fuzzy set as science cannot determine exact truthful values, it is not exact - hence 23andme's reports are a story based on % of 'identified' genetic markers from a particular continent which may or may not be indigenous markers - understanding identified in this case does not mean correct or indisputable).

Women/XX are elements of the human set, intersex/XXY/etc are elements of the human set, men/XY are elements of the human set but you cannot conflate one set with another. Yes there are relations (Venn style) but those relations do not make the sets interchangeable or 'conflatable' -relations can be dynamic or fuzzy and can be a subset of the sets or a subset of subsets etc. but these variable relations do not equate nor conflate static or crisp sets i.e. women, men, intersex.

The TRA rhetoric referenced above has no meaning as it conflates the set XX with the set XY via a poor attempt to appropriate the oppression/pain et al of 'black women' to manipulate the perspective on what a woman is. It is illogical, nonsensical, and quite frankly fucking stupid. Most visible TRAs are 'white' XY - many are in STEM fields... they know what they are doing with this rhetoric, it is an attempt to call us XX humans morons by misuse of a very valuable tool - like we don't get set theory and will get all confused because 'ladybrain'.

The next time a TRA spouts off that pitiful nonsense tell them to stop conflating fuzzy sets with crisp sets. They either won't understand what you're saying or they will understand and know you got their number. Drop your mic and move along.

Haven't RTFT, so someone may already have said this, but I think one of the biggest reasons for this subset nonsense is the way the TRAs have abused language by bludgeoning people into writing 'trans woman' rather than 'transwoman'.

Doing that makes 'trans' an adjective for the purposes of their argument, when it really isn't. Transsexual, transgender, transvestite - all one word. Transwoman is also one word.

Transwomen are transwomen.
Women are women.
No need for 'subsets'.
No need for cis.

They hate it because it denies that they are women, but that's tough.

TWANW

Women/XX are elements of the human set, intersex/XXY/etc are elements of the human set, men/XY are elements of the human set but you cannot conflate one set with another.

I’ve never heard of anyone with Kleinfelter’s Syndrome (XXY) refer to himself as anything other than a man. I think if you told someone with Kleinfelter’s that the reason he can’t father children is that he isn’t a ‘real man’ you’d get a very sharp response.

There are very few ‘intersex’ conditions that come close to the popular misconception of the term as some kind of hermaphroditism. Almost all ‘intersex’ people are clearly either male or female.

It would be easier if I could draw this but I can’t on my phone.

White women and black women are subsets of women; white men and black men are subsets of men; white women and white men are subsets of white people; black men and black women are subsets of black people. White men, white women, black men and black women are all subsets of people.

There is no subset of women that includes men, black or white. Men and women are mutually exclusive sets. Transwomen simply aren’t women.

It’s just a stupid label we should have rejected as soon as it was proposed but we just let it slide because the numbers were low and we didn’t think it would be a problem.

@AlwaysComingHome and all of FWR

My apologies, that was a typo as I meant XX or XY but as an afterthought should have added the following: gonadal,
complex or undetermined. Please excuse my faux pas.

And I think I need to correct the crisp sets I described as technically intersex people are a fuzzy set.

My apologies!!!

As many MNers know, I am in a STEM related field that is heavily math-based and while I apply the scientific method I am not in a science field. Any additional education is warmly and excitedly welcomed!

It’s just a stupid label we should have rejected as soon as it was proposed but we just let it slide because the numbers were low and we didn’t think it would be a problem.

I want to be permitted to use the biologically accurate and entirely inoffensive three-letter acronym.

TRAs have abused language by bludgeoning people into writing 'trans woman' rather than 'transwoman'.

Blimey! I hadn't noticed that. Subtle but important.

Do the guidelines here prevent us from saying transwoman?

Note: my autocorrect wants it to be two words.

I read ‘subset’ as a mathematical term, and it’s neutral to me.

But the statement ‘Black women are a subset of women’ doesn’t sound neutral. It evokes in me the question: why are you pointing out Black women? And I think, this could be a good thing (seeking to improve maternal outcomes by trying to understand them in comparison to outcomes for other ethnic subsets of women). Or this could be a bad thing (seeking to appropriate Black women’s experiences by making inappropriate comparisons).

Trans activists could say:
Wealthy women are a subset of women
Educated women are a subset of women
Women in STEM are a subset of women
American women are a subset of women

But I don’t see that. All I see is subsets that aren’t alike being compared inappropriately.

My two pennorth on this would be, when I hear "black women" I'm not even sure what it means.

Any woman who is not white? Would it include someone of mixed heritage?

It is such a vague term as to be almost useless, and so when I hear it being used my "spidey-sense" starts to tingle. The other groups like polish women, Jewish women, women over six foot etc seem to actually mean something to me.

(I might have used that Spider-Man reference completely wrongly.)

My apologies - I'm going back to the OP

I do realise things have moved on on this thread.

There are no subsets of women. You either are, or you aren't.

@HorsewithnoFrills

I'm with you - 'black' is an extremely poor descriptor as is 'white' or 'brown'. I despise that many western countries report general population data something like: 70% is white 30% is other, I mean wtf is that? Talk about dehumanizing for so-called 'others'.

Unfortunately in the US if you are considered 'brown' (used to describe Latinx, Middle Eastern, Indian, et al or whatever passes) or 'black' (African American, African, Caribbean, Haitian, et al or whatever passes) you face prejudice from 'whites' (whatever "passes"). The racism is heavy here - whether internalized or externalized.

So while I don't like 'black', 'brown', or 'white' as descriptors that is how those that exercise prejudice determine (for themselves) who or who isn't worthy of basic respect and dignity. When oppressed communities of people rally around a descriptor e.g. Black Lives Matter, I get it because prejudiced small minds don't see 'black' or 'brown' people as diverse groups of individuals with varied ancestry and thoughts but as groups of 'others'. Thus Black Lives Matter fights for all people considered 'black' because cops shooting innocent kids/adults (mostly boys/men), and lack of media attention for crimes committed against 'black' people conveys that black lives don't matter. In Birmingham, Alabama on October 24, 2018, seven kids were injured in a mass shooting and while a couple local news outlets reported on the shooting it was not reported on CNN or otherwise and was not reported as a mass shooting (multiple victims of firearms related violence) even though it was. That speaks volumes.

Hence, the TRA dog whistle is immensely disturbing/racist/bizarre as well as an incorrect representation of set theory.