"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?

Jelly The only other time I have seen different women described as a subsets, is by the Incels before they were kicked off reddit. It is offensive in the same way that cis is offensive,and being called a mensturator is offensive, but even more so I think.

Ooo I did a quick google.

If A and B are sets and if every element of A is an element of B, we say that A is a subset of B, or B includes A, and we write:

A⊂B

Which would mean that mathematically speaking neither black women or white women are subsets of the wider category of women because not every characteristic (in this case race) is shared by women as a whole.

Have I understood that right?

Anyway I'm sure that's not to do with the original intent of the question, and no, TRAs are not being logical because just because one thing may apply to one group, doesn't mean it applies to another.

I cannot believe there are literate people competent enough to use a computer who do not understand what is meant by subset.
Google Venn diagrams.

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.

No, it doesn't, because we were speaking specifically of black women here; that was the reason for your post. I have nothing against subsets per se; obviously, these are all subsets. It's just that in a post about black women, white women is a glaring omission in that list. It should have come first, imo, as the most obvious subset.
This might seem like splitting hairs but it happens all. the. time in real life and it might be worthwhile being aware of it.

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?
Yes, OP, that is absolutely the inference that can be taken from your post. You might have listed a ‘range of women’ - I’d argue more a range of qualities that can apply to any human, male or female, that have no bearing on whether that person is a woman or not - but you chose these specific categories as ‘other’, you didn’t choose white, British, Christian, able-bodied, because that is your default standard. That’s the implication that people are reading from your post.

Messyisthenewtidy

no, because it's the set of women, not the set of women with certain characteristics. if you're a woman, you're in the set, and that set can be divided into subsets based on whatever subjective criteria one sets.

There's a reason why white men get away with saying they're oppressed as much as black women.

race is not cultural lol

Thats what messy was explaining; the set is 'women'. So women cannot be a subset of women, they share the characteristics that include them in the set.

women can be a subset of woman. blonde women are a subset of women. fat women are a subset of women. women who don't understand set theory are a subset of women.

Messy, no you haven't. The point is that 'woman' is the set, and there can be various groupings within that (white, black, green hair, lives in Basingstoke) that are not shared by the wider group, but everyone in the wider group has something in common (womanhood). Google Venn diagrams.

Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

Surely the issue isn't with the word subset - that's a distraction. It's the idea that any prefix creates a subset. If "trans," is as legitimate a prefix as black, or pregnant, or Mumsnet using - it implies other-ness to that set.

I would be offended if the subset Scottish women, to which I belong, was constantly compared to inflatable women, just because both have a prefix.

It's the constant use of black women being considered as other to women as men are to women, that's offensive. Would people offended by the word subset, be offended by strata? We shouldn't let the fact that some people can't understand sets, and think a prefix is all it takes to be one, mean we are offended by a mathematical term, surely?

you didn’t choose white, British, Christian, able-bodied, because that is your default standard.

Actually, no. Two of those criteria do not apply to me, and a third only tenuously. I chose them as contrasts to black, Polish, Jewish and diabetic.

This is an interesting thread.

I think BarbieJellyBabyBrain has it more-or-less right about the ‘sub’ in ‘subset’. But there may be more. Let us see.

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

It might be simpler to see what it is all about if we use the equivalent definition
‘ A is a subset of B’ means ‘if x is a member of set A then x is a member of set B ’

[equivalently, again, ‘A is a subset of B’ means ‘if you are A then you are B’ … think of membership of sets in terms of having properties, roughly speaking, so for instance if A is the set of green things and B the set of things that look like cabbages, then ‘A is a subset of B’ means ‘if you are green then you are cabbage-looking’.]

Now, the ‘if … then’ here gives us the clue that ‘subset’ language is a way of expressing logical inference. (Set theory has the same structure (‘is isomorphic to’) simple logic.)

So, translate into logical language:

‘black women are a subset of women’ means ‘if you are a black woman, you are a woman.’

That ‘ if you are a black woman, you are a woman ’ is a weird thing to say. Why? And why might we think it racist even to assert it? (Is it not – obviously! – true?!) I suspect it could appear racist for me to say it in certain contexts because asserting it might seem to presuppose the possibility of debating its truth – which presupposition would be racist: it is not open for debate.

No debate is familiar, of course. And TRAs want to claim ‘no debate’ for what to them seems an equivalent assertion: ‘if you are a trans woman, you are a woman’ … or, equivalently, ‘trans women form a subset of women’.

Once the meaning of (the relative neologism) ‘trans woman’ is explained, however, it becomes clear that trans women form a subset of men, not of women. By definition, a trans woman is a man who wants to be (or perhaps believes he is ) a woman. ‘A man who …’ If you are a trans woman, perhaps surprisingly until the neologism is explained, you are a man.

No debate? No, perhaps not. (Unless we locate the debate where it belongs, at the level of understanding the semantics and the logic. Are those debateable? Hmm.) But the TRAs have the case (in technical terms) arse-over-tip. Trans women are men. No debate ; it is analytically true that trans women are men.

Why such an interesting thread? Several reasons. Not least that it highlights the difficulties inherent in arguing and explaining exclusively in writing like this, particularly with regard to matters of logic. What would take a moment or two of face-to-face interaction can take a long time on the internet. So I find, anyway. Twitter does not help. I suppose that goes without saying.

Would demographic be a better word than subset?

Demographic means: a particular sector of a population.

We might not often use subsets to group people but we do take notes of demographics in crime statistics, voting polls, census, employment.

At times it is useful to see how different demographics of people are being impacted in a situation. Men's suicide rates can allow us to target education and mental health campaigns at men. Cystic fibrosis is primarily suffered by White people because its genetic.

If we don't look at demographics then the unique needs of minority groups in a population will not be recognised.

That ‘ if you are a black woman, you are a woman ’ is a weird thing to say. Why?

Yes, why? Surely it is both logical and necessary? Without recognising this, how can feminism truly represent and work for all women? Without recognising this, how can we also recognise that if you are a transwoman you are a man?

After all, as has been so emphatically pointed out to me, I do not represent all women. It is necessary to recognise the variants within the group 'women'.

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'.

Yes.

Women exist. Men exist. No subsets required. The definition of 'man' and 'woman' is crystal clear.

Skin colour, race, religion, ethnicity exist. I share those things with both men and women. My experience of those things might also be influenced by the fact that I am female. But they have no bearing on the fact that I fit the definition of 'woman', as do all the other adult human females in the world.

Bloody autocorrect! Not variants - variety.

Using mathematical / logical language in public discussions is a risky move.

If we don't look at demographics then the unique needs of minority groups in a population will not be recognised.

I was just coming to say that.

In this example, we need data on black women as a subset of women so that we can measure discrimination/inequality and create public policy to tackle it.

We need data on women as a subset of human beings so that we can measure discrimination/inequality and create public policy to tackle it.

The word subset is doing positive, not negative, work here.

Using mathematical / logical language in public discussions is a risky move.

What other meaning does the word subset have?!

subset /ˈsʌbsɛt/
noun
a part of a larger group of related things
a set of which all the elements are contained in another set