"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?

For something to be a part of a set it has to first be a member of that set - it has to share the underlying primary characteristics. The set woman has the primary characteristic of xx chromosomes. All other characteristics of the person with xx chromosomes that can change without altering the primary characteristics are secondary characteristics - skin colour, hair colour and so. In this sense, women may be grouped according to secondary characteristics but it does not alter their membership of the primary group. Sometimes this subsetting makes sense as for instance, women who share certain secondary characteristics may be more prone to certain diseases and so need specific health care interventions.

What the tras activists are trying to do is to break down the whole notion of primary group because they see it as referring to a "normality" that is oppressive. To say that tw are a subset of women in the same way that black women are is not only ridiculously racist it threatens the way that we have seen and managed the world since way before the birth of Christ.

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

It's JellySlice, FFS!

White women are a subset of women.
Black women are a subset of women.

This is set theory, not hierarchical language.

What is offensive is the TRA argument that black women (they always choose black) are a subgroup of women whose membership of the group "woman" is in as much doubt, as disputable as men's membership.

Exactly.

This thread shows that the phrase, whilst mathematically may be correct, people naturally , sesnibky, try to interpret what someone really means by their words. That’s the basis of poetry and song and novels.

in this case the prefix “sub” is highly negative especially when used to describe people who typically face discrimination. I suspect saying someone is within the type women would also lead to troubles as it could imply not wholey woman.

Given the potential for insult or subconscious discrimination , what is there to gain from using such descriptors ?

Personally, I see red on this one because of the inherent assumption of black women as 'other'. You could use subset, or you could use category, it wouldn't matter - the context of the AWA argument is to saying that a black woman is only a woman in the way that a man who feels feminine is a woman.

That's so offensively racist given the long, long history of describing black women as masculine that I just cannot believe it gets any traction at all.

Couple it with the clear assumption that 'White' is the default, I'm astonished that the racist, sexist fuckers who use it have the nerve to call GC views 'White feminism'.

But in a neutral context, talking about the category of black women - for example if you were discussing the rates of DV in that demographic - is fine.

Given the potential for insult or subconscious discrimination , what is there to gain from using such descriptors ?

Because the OP was trying to get her head around the way the extremist transactivists framing and why it's wrong?

I think langauge, vocabulary, the way we use language, incredibly important. At first I used to say trans women instead of transwomen, which I later realised is using "trans" as an adjective of women. That doesn't work. In my mind, the wording and defiitiions is this:
Women
trans woman = biological woman transitioning or transitioned to man
transwoman = biological man transitioning or transitioned to woman, but still a male subset
trans man = biological man transitioning or transitioned to woman
transman = biological woman transitioning or transitioned to man

I know that that is not the current terminology but that's how, in my mind, the words work. The space between the words makes a huge difference.

So, to me, transwoman is a subset of man, transman is a subset of woman.
I hope this does not get me in trouble with the guidelines...

And once again, black women are only a subset if white women also are. The OP leaving out white women was, for me, a huge red flag. Words matter.

It's a phrase which is used cynically by TRAs to make a false equivalence with an intersectionally oppressed group of women.

But perhaps one of the points of intersectional feminism should be a reminder that white women are a subset of women. Western women are a subset of women. Etc. That it ain't all about white western women?

'Subset' should be a neutral, mathematical term but the way it's used is politicised.

Would you describe Bob Marley as a sub-set of Human?
No, but the set {Bob Marley} is a (rather small) subset of the set of humans. All it means is that Bob Marley was human.

I was confused too OP. Black women are a subset of women literally just says that black women are women. No other information. White women are a subset of women too. So are women over 65. So are women with short hair. Some women belong to more than one of the subsets mentioned. The only slight problem might be your subset of black women or women with short hair aren't terribly well defined because what precise skin tone or hair length do you start including someone in the subset? The empty set and the set of all women are also subsets of the set of women, just not very interesting ones. People with black hair is not a subset of women because it includes some elements who aren't women. Take the intersection with the set of women and you get women with black hair, which is now a subset of both women and a subset of people with black hair. Basic maths that is. They used to teach sets in reception class, it seems to have gone out of fashion.

You can't say transwomen are a subset of women, because they don't satisfy the basic requirement of being women. Comparing the group of black women to the group of transwomen could be offensive because it might seem to imply that black women are also not actually a subset of women either.

TRAs now have US redefining words! Just stop it!

This thread ended up talking more about the meaning of the word "subset" than the fact that TWATW. That's natural in a way because gender critical people will take the latter as read. However, that displaced focus is just how TRAs would want it.

I’ve never heard humans being referred to as sunset of anything before. Although it was probably used centuries ago by racists precisely as validation to treat black peoples as not quite the same as white people.
it’s a highly offensive term.

😔🥺😱😱😱😱😱🤬

As a black woman wow to those who don’t understand why this is offensive then their is no hope

A Ford Focus is not a subset of a Range Rover even though the Range Rover is viewed as a better make model and is more expensive
A golf buggy is a subset of a car

Of course black women can be a subset of women, just like blonde women, just like tall women, just like women from Cardiff. It's not racist in the slightest. I get the feeling people who are calling it racist don't understand what a subset is and have no idea of set theory.

What I objected to was the OP's making white women the default, which she admits to. That IS ingrained, unconscious racism; because it does make black women in inferior "subset", using the word "sub" here now literally. I do get it was unconscious. People who don't see the unconscious racism -- they, unfortunately, are the ones who don't understand.

lang I wasn’t critising, I was just wondering if we would lose something valuable by restricting language. On principle that seems to me a bad thing. Appreciate not focused on the original question though, sorry

It is TRAs making white women the default.

They don't argue "you accept white women are women therefore it makes sense to accept men are women"
They don't draw a comparative question over the membership of white women in the group women.
They use black women as the group whose membership of the group women is precarious.

This is all TRA argument and entirely offensive.

I believe the OP was pointing out, not endorsing the TRA argument.

Naming black women as a subset of women does NOT assume that white is the default. White women are also a subset of women. The default in the set 'women' is 'women', regardless of skin shade.

I am now part of the subset of women, 'women who are bashing their heads against the wall in frustration'.

I see "subset" as a neutral term, meaning some but not all within a group. The "sub" just means a smaller number than the total. We could all be in many subsets of humanity, such as people with dark hair, white people, men shorter than 5'10", short-sighted women over 35, red-haired girls under 10, black women who are lawyers, Chinese women with a degree, etc. If someone is mathematically in the subset of women who have both green eyes and brown hair, it isn't an insult or compliment, it's just numbers. "Sub" means under as in submarine (neutral) or below as in sub-standard (negative connotation) or smaller in number as in subset (neutral). Sub-set does not mean sub-optimal in any way at all.

I have NEVER EVER heard white people described as a subset of anything. It never happens. A white man is still 'a human' and everything else needs adjectives to explain it's 'subset'. I'm not having it.

But it's TRAs who have brought in the 'black women are a subset of women' thing. White women technically are a subset of women.

The subset of women who are male is... The Empty Set

What I objected to was the OP's making white women the default, which she admits to. That IS ingrained, unconscious racism; because it does make black women in inferior "subset", using the word "sub" here now literally. I do get it was unconscious. People who don't see the unconscious racism -- they, unfortunately, are the ones who don't understand.
amen for us to be a subset of would mean white woman are the default

Thinking white women are the awful is white privilege most of the world female population is not white

You can't say transwomen are a subset of women, because they don't satisfy the basic requirement of being women. Comparing the group of black women to the group of transwomen could be offensive because it might seem to imply that black women are also not actually a subset of women either.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

White women technically are a subset of women.

Oh God, I don't mean 'technically' there! White women are a subset of women in the same way that black women are.

TRAs also try to suggest that 'cis' women are a subset of women.

No. Any woman who is not male is a woman. And therefore no subset needed, it's just the larger group of 'woman'.

What I objected to was the OP's making white women the default, which she admits to. That IS ingrained, unconscious racism; because it does make black women in inferior "subset", using the word "sub" here now literally.

Please note that I also referred to Jewish women, Polish women, refugee women and diabetic women .

Does that mean that Christian women and British women are the default and that Jewish women and Polish women are somehow inferior? That a refugee is inferior to a settled citizen? That a person with diabetes is inferior to someone without diabetes? For all you know I could be a diabetic, Jewish woman, the daughter of Polish refugees.

I deliberately chose a range of women who might face challenges additional to their female biology. I did not chose to say white women because I acknowledge that white women do not face the additional challenges that black women face.

Naming black women as a subset of women does NOT assume that white is the default. White women are also a subset of women. The default in the set 'women' is 'women', regardless of skin shade.

All objections would have been moot IF the OP had included white women in the list of subsets. Not doing so leaves one open the accusation that white is the default. The OP ADMITS that this is the case!!! This is a problem that most white people never see and never acknowledge. And yes, it comes from the privilege of belonging to that presumed default.
Most black people see this. Most white people don't. You, BarbieJellyetc, also don't.