"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?

Well TRAs using it are wrong if they’re saying trans women are a subset of women, trans men are a subset of women though

There is no biological differentiator and you are categorising by biology.

Although not in the definition if you break the word subset down, sub = inferior or below. This makes your statement both false and offensive imo.

I think it's the word subset that causes offence. It implies some kind of major difference. Are for instance brown eyed and blue eyed women different 'subsets'? Women from Liverpool and women from London? I can see why TRAs divide biological women and transwomen into 'subsets' - because they really are radically different. Women with differing skin colours - less so.

Goodness me, are there people out there who don’t know what ‘subset’ means?

I suppose that’s another subset. Women who don’t know the meaning of subset.

TRAs use this to try and gently explain to the hard of thinking how white men with autogynephilia are women just like black women are women, to try and trip them up into thinking 'ooh I don't want to be mean so I must accept that these men are women'.

Trans women are a subset of men.

Black women are women, no subset needed.

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

It's not that we are misunderstanding the meaning of subset. It is that this particular argument is used as a cudgel against gender critical women. Imagine that - (mostly) white males holding up the oppression and experiences of black women as a way to prove transwomen are worse off. It's revolting.

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

It is correct but an unusable statement. It is not necessary to say as all people are human. Same way as saying a black woman is a subset of woman. Its not needed unless you are trying to convince others males are a subset of woman.

You would never say "oh you know Sandra, tall, dark hair black woman who's a subset of woman"

I think people really are misunderstanding the meaning of subset!!! It doesn't mean 'inferior group'. White women are a subset of women, so are black women or old women or red-haired women. Trans women are not. It is the tra argument that is offensive because it makes the wrong equivalence, not the op.

There are no subsets of “woman” - it is an absolute. “Black” is a subset of “race”, not sex.
So called transwomen are not a subset of either sex. They are men.
Whatever stereotypes they identify with, or whatever their mental health problems, (with which I sympathise as a doctor), they are biologically male.

Race is a completely different axis to sex and its mad to try to conflate them. The anti-women-activist (AWA) interest in promoting this viewpoint is to try to draw a (false) equivalence between feminism and racism.

There would be as much (lack of) rational logic to use a less emotive (but equally irrelevant) feature like eg "blond haired women are a subset of women and women who are accountants are a subset of women and in the same way women who have penises are a subset of women" - that is more obviously ridiculous. The race example is no less ridiculous but obviously decent non-racist people (hopefully most of us) are aware of the possibility of an unintended insensitivity to a race issue and so the AWAs hope we will therefore shut up and not call out their idiocy.

The statement itself us somewhat racist as it clearly comes with an assumption that there is a "default" race for women (ie white) with other races being divergences from this "norm" which "hey and we all know we have to accept and love those who are different from us normal (white) folk" and then bait-and-switch an entirely unrelated "difference" (being a man) as something that should be loved and accepted in the same way.

Yes, I think it's the 'sub' bit that makes it sounds like people in a subset are inferior.

It just means that within a larger group, there are other smaller groups which have common characteristics. But all of the smaller groups still have all the elements of the larger group.

A set A is a subset of another set B if all elements of the set A are elements of the set B.

If you took any woman at all, there would be numerous subsets that they could be put into. Married, infertile, had cancer, 2 children, rocket scientist, menopausal etc. In fact it's important to be able to put people into these subsets to find even more common ground, and explore the issues that being in each of those subsets brings. None of that means that they don't share the wider characteristic of being in the group of 'woman'.

Transwoman don't share the wider characteristic of being in the larger group 'woman' because they don't have the characteristics necessary to be in that larger group.

It is them who is racist by suggesting that black women are not included in the definition of woman, in the same way that biological males are not. And then go on to invoke 'white feminism' etc, which is actually a real but separate issue.

Yes they use black women as a parallel for how black women weren’t afforded rights as women to how transwomen aren’t afforded rights as women.

Ignoring of course that black women are women. And transwomen are men.

It’s a shitty way to use intersectionality as a means to claim womanhood and in keeping with trans women, appropriating black women’s oppression whilst doing so.

It is all about using inter-sectional feminism to pitch white males as the most oppressed group ever.

‘No biological differentiator and you are categorising by biology’.

Ah. Perhaps I have misunderstood ‘subset’. Does it mean ‘a way to sub-categorise such that there are no overlaps’? (Can’t think of a better way to put it).

So, to take my bird example above, finches and penguins would be subsets, but green birds and yellow birds wouldn’t be because they are biologically meaningless?

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

I agree thaf TW are not a subset of women, though.

They are a subset of men.

No, because there is only one of him. He isn’t part of a set.

It is that this particular argument is used as a cudgel against gender critical women. Imagine that - (mostly) white males holding up the oppression and experiences of black women as a way to prove transwomen are worse off. It's revolting.

Totally agree - but I think that the OP was trying to illustrate this argument rather than making the argument themselves weren't they?

It is all about using inter-sectional feminism to pitch white males as the most oppressed group ever.

Isn't it just.

This subset of men will use any tactic they can to convince others that they are women. They care not about the oppression of females, the abuse, the murders or health issues. They only care about their own validation and they are happy to trample on all females to get it.

It’s about groups of people though isn’t it? Bob Marley isn’t a subset/category because he’s one person, in the same way I on my own as not a subset of human or a subset of Asian women. I would belong to th subset of Asian women though.

I might put ‘Rastafairians’ as a subset of men though.

Set A(1 5 6 7 9)
Set B(6 7)

Set B is a subset of A.

Sorry if people find this offensive to the numbers 6 & 7

TRAs do it with infertile women as well. They appropriate the experiences of women who cannot carry a baby and give birth to further their own argument.

They don't give a shiny shite about the experiences of infertile women, about the road that those women travelled to come to a place where they are 'infertile'. TRAs don't see them as actual real people with human lived experience. 'Infertile women' are just useful to them to further their own agenda.

It's disgusting.

but I think that the OP was trying to illustrate this argument rather than making the argument themselves weren't they?

I highly doubt the argument was made in good faith and I suspect this thread is being watched closely.

For one thing, you’re not listing subsets. These are not discrete categories to fit people into. One woman could tick all of those boxes you listed (although not a lot of Polish Jews around, granted, interesting choices you’ve made there). And a man could be all of those things too. A person’s race is not a subset of their sex, a person is both of those things. Intersectional feminism was about recognising how multiple oppressive hierarchies (sex, race, class etc) can interact and affect simultaneously. Not about sorting people into neat little boxes, claiming ‘an intersectional identity’ (which I’ve seen the woke-rainbow-penis brigade do), or including men in a women’s movement.

If you describe any of the categories you listed as a ‘subset’ of women it can come across as you’re basically saying that you consider a white, able bodied etc woman the default model and all of these other women are somehow lesser.

Finally the equivalence of feminine-identifying males with black females does come off as fairly racist - playing into the trope of black women being considered mannish/unladylike. It’s always black women that are picked as the example. As if it’s somehow surprising that black women could be considered women.