"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?

As a diabetic black woman am I subset of a subset?

A subset of a subset is just a smaller subset. We're all in as many subsets as you care to describe - for example I'm in the subsets of mothers, over 40s women, professional women, British women, overweight women, I could go on all day. Or in the intersection of all those if it ever became relevant. The subcategories we talk about tend to be those where there's a concern that a particular group is being discriminated against or disadvantaged or have a specific issue that affects that group more than the wider categories they are part of. White boys from disadvantaged backgrounds say. Yes, maybe black women. Maybe transwomen too, but then they'd be a subset of humans or of men not of women.

thirdfiddle : Subset is such a standard logical term, it has no emotional baggage.

That seems right to me.

Also Langcleg earlier pointed out the positive aspect of the term 'subset' in intersectional discourse. That also seems right; how else to talk of, say, relations between ageism and sexism if we deny ourselves the possibility of talking of the set of old women as a subset of the set of women?

[Echoes of class analysis? I am not sure why, thirdfiddle, you want to avoid 'subclass'; sometimes 'classes' seems an apt generalisation for this context (because Marx?), and we do not seem susceptible to the paradoxes (not 'big' enough!). Is there another reason? (Not trying to derail, just curious and ignorant.)]

"not be particularly nice".

No, racist. Experiencing racism isn't an emotion, it's an objective fact, in the same way that experiencing misogyny is an objective fact. It's demonstrable. Black women were compared to men in the past because of racism and it's happening again with trans. There is no good reason to single out black women like this apart from appropriation and an ignorance of black women's historical situation.

Racism isn't just about offence, it's about harm. Lessening and othering people, in this case black women, or appropriating their oppression is harmful, It reduces their status, it treats their oppression as a prop for a male fantasy. TRAs do it shamelessly.

"the person making this argument believes that transwomen are in fact women. There are lots of people who do, so that is going to be the case a lot of the time. They are mistaken - but that isn't offensive, it's incorrect."

It's nice for you that you're not offended (are you a woman? You take your erasure very lightly if you are) but actually it's incredibly offensive (it reduces a woman down to nothing more than a feeling in a man's head), and misogynist, and most importantly - harmful. Women are being harmed in women's prisons and women's shelters because of the belief, children are being sterilsed because of the belief, women are being silenced in public, including losing their jobs because of the belief. Again, concrete harm, not offense. It's amazing where mere thoughts and beliefs can take us.

I don't think you need the "sub" before "category". A category is a specifically defined division in a system of classification

Or, just define the term of what the set is before you begin.

I do think it's interesting that the woman who coined the term intersectionality does use the word subset.

Indeed. Crenshaw's work is based on illuminating black women's specific marginalisation by being simultaneously:

a subset of the set woman
a subset of the set black human beings

And that acknowledging this is vital in redressing the inequality faced by black women (not women and not black people: black women).

(None of which has anything to do with the racist way in which extremist transactivists compare white males to black women in an effort to force admission as a subset to a set to which they do not belong.)

Subset is such a standard logical term, it has no emotional baggage.

It may carry no emotional baggage for me, but it's evident that it does for many other women. Therefore, I reckon my feelings about it are pretty much irrelevant, and I shall try to avoid using it in a way which may upset other women.

The thread title makes one think of a collective noun and as such "a subset of women" seems pretty antagonistic to me.

Just thinking out loud.

Isn't that like stopping using the word paediatrician because some people confuse it with paedophile Errol? (Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know.) I don't feel I'm able to stop using such a common term as subset. Maybe it's my mathematical training but it's very much everyday vocabulary and the synonyms I would pick aren't accepted either as they have the same prefix.

Was anybody actually using the phrase "subset of women" until it came up with trans, or even on this thread?

If not, why do you need it now? What's wrong with "group of women"? It's much less objectifying.

Squares are a subset of rectangles. (Or more formally, the set of squares is a subset of the set of rectangles.)
Squares are a group of rectangles.
Doesn't really say the same thing.

Look, we all know why black women. Because they have historically been discriminated against and disadvantaged. TRAs want transwomen to be seen as a disadvantaged subset of women. Unfortunately for them however discriminated against they may have been and however much they want to be, they are not women so the comparison falls at the first hurdle. And if pushed does become racist because if you're saying A is like B you're also implying B is like A.

(And yes class is probably fine, it's so taken over by computer science now classes and subclasses are probably more widely used than sets and subsets. I think I was thinking of underclass but obviously that's different.)

Isn't that like stopping using the word paediatrician because some people confuse it with paedophile Errol?

I really don't think so. I've never heard 'paediatrician' being used for any 'political' reason - that case is pure ignorance.

I shall certainly continue using 'subset' in other domains, but in this particular context, 'black women are a subset of women' is being used in a way which is (a) to make a completely inaccurate comparison and (b) which some black women find problematic.

It's usually not too hard to find different ways to word things, once you're aware of a problem.

Was anybody actually using the phrase "subset of women" until it came up with trans, or even on this thread?

Yes, why are so many on here avoiding addressing this?

I have never heard anyone use language like this outside of a maths class

The pedantry over the use of this word reminds me of the cis apologists.

We find the comparison of transwomen with black women offensive, but I think it's worth putting a finger on what exactly about it is offensive. I think the specific difference here (black women are in fact a subset, trans women are not) casts light on TRA thinking. Plus I didn't bring it up myself but prepared to step in to defend a poster who's accused of being racist when I don't think they were.

HorsewithnoGender:
Was anybody actually using the phrase "subset of women" until it came up with trans, or even on this thread?

Yes, why are so many on here avoiding addressing this?

I have never heard anyone use language like this outside of a maths class.

I looked up Langcleg's reference. For example:

“I explicitly adopt a Black feminist stance in this survey of violence against women of color. I do this cognizant of several tensions that such a position entails. The most significant one stems from the criticism that while feminism purports to speak for women of color through its invocation of the term "woman," the feminist perspective excludes women of color because it is based upon the experiences and interests of a certain subset of women.” (Added emphasis.)

[ Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color ; Kimberle Crenshaw, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), pp. 1241-1299 (Stable URL: www.jstor.org/stable/1229039), see P. 1244 fn 8.]

Thanks Langcleg!

That is 1991. Kimberle Crenshaw using the phrase ' subset of women '. Interesting (important?) article. Useful, succinct phrase.

"the feminist perspective excludes women of color because it is based upon the experiences and interests of a certain subset of women.”

ie, the whole of woman is defined by a subset, white women.

The presumption is women = white women.

Yes, Crenshawe's work is important.

That's the only example! Was anybody else on this thread using the phrase "subset of women" apart from Kimberle Krenshaw nearly thirty years ago? Be honest!

Krenshaw was writing at a time when there wasn't even a thought of dividing women into different groups to provide the justification for a group of men (not part of the group women) joining in. Maybe the phrase isn't quite so helpful now. Divide and conquer can be an effective tactic, we shouldn't let them do that to us.

Funny how the OP doesn't mention that;
white women
able-bodied women
christian women
English women

are just as much subsets

This thread is an example of what the TRA, MRA, AWA are pushing over and over again, you're all arguing about dictionary definitions, mathematical definitions. Subsets and lots of other drivel.
Divide and conquer, that's what oppressors do.
TRA's want to force acceptance of them as women onto the whole of society, so who do they pick on? They see women as lesser people, so that's an easy target, then some knobhead thinks, this isn't working, we'll have to step up. They all know that Humans can't change sex, so we'll use this expression, Black Women are a subset of women, so, we'll use this to explain that trans women are women. They are using subset as a definition of different/other that is why this is such fucking racist and abhorrent language. Fucking TRAs always trying to change the use of language.

@Absolutepowercorrupts

It's not racist and it's not abhorrent. It's just set theory. The only people enabling/allowing them to use this language to "oppress" women are those of you who don't understand very basic set theory and assume it's some sort of trick. It isn't.

"No, racist. Experiencing racism isn't an emotion, it's an objective fact, in the same way that experiencing misogyny is an objective fact. It's demonstrable. Black women were compared to men in the past because of racism and it's happening again with trans. There is no good reason to single out black women like this apart from appropriation and an ignorance of black women's historical situation. "

All you have said is that you know the term subset used this way is racist because it feels racist, and because it feels racist it must be racist.
That is arguing in a circle, it tells us nothing about the use of the term, and it's also the logic of transactivism.

Eh no, I said that set theory refers to numbers and objects generally, thus referring to women in this way objectifies and dehumanises us, particularly when there is a better term to use - group - which does neither of those things. The only place I can find men and women being described as "subsets" is in medical research literature, which might understandably use abstract terminology about different populations. Not circular in the slightest and nothing to do with my feelings.

Language and how it's used matters. Feminists know this. Krenshaw uses "subset" rhetorically to (rightly) diminish white women's importance, demonstrating that they are a small group within a much larger group of women rather than the default under which every other group of women falls.

However trans women likening the fact that they aren't women to black women's struggles, including not being considered "real" women during slavery in order to justify the exploitation of their labour, is racist and misogynist. It's appropriation and likens black women to men, once again. Again, nothing to do with feelings.

You didn't answer though - are you a woman? Like I said, if you are you take the erasure of your sex rhetorically, socially and legally, very lightly.

KindOfAGeek:
"the feminist perspective excludes women of color because it is based upon the experiences and interests of a certain subset of women.”

ie, the whole of woman is defined by a subset, white women.

The presumption is women = white women.

Indeed. Although to my mind it is worth distinguishing ‘woman’ / ‘the whole of woman’ from ‘the set of women’, I suppose largely because of possible errors attendant on assimilating a set to its members or its defining property. (Not that I have any reason to think you, KindOfAGeek, prone to such errors.)

Crenshawe is satisfyingly clear and precise. The critique she refers to here is of a certain ( sc non-intersectional) brand of feminism. It remains difficult to see how she could be so clear and precise if she denied herself the use of the phrase in question, ‘subset of women’. It seems clear she, at least, did not take the phrase to have racist import.

Yes, Crenshawe's work is important.

Thanks for that assessment. I know little about all this. But I am trying to learn.

Erythronium

Yes, to answer your question, I am a woman, a regular born one. I don't really understand concluding that because my reaction to things doesn't look like yours, I don't take them seriously. I find people who are disingenuous make me angry, and people who I feel should know better, but don't, make me frustrated. Some topics, like the environment, make me feel something like despair. But I don't see getting angry at people who have errors in their thinking as something that would be useful - it happens to me sometimes, I expect it does to everyone on occasion, but not usually when discussing something like the meaning of language or whether a particular idea is factual, or rational. I am usually a relatively phlegmatic person. In any case, for people who are deluded, I don't think getting angry helps them see. For those who are not deluded, getting angry doesn't help either.
I can easily see why someone else might have a different sort of response to this topic, but I am pretty committed to the idea that it is not a good idea to be less than careful and precise about these kinds of discussions.
I don't think it is the case that people never use the term subset in relation to people. I don't think people use the term at all much, because it's only useful occasionally. And as this discussion shows, a lot of people don't really know what it means in an exact way, so they might not use it at all.

But the idea that it shouldn't be used for people because it likens them to objects - to me that is something that comes out of thin air. A set can be of anything, ideas, people, animals, molecules, numbers, angels, whatever you want to talk about. It's useful because what it describes is the relation of the things you are talking about - in a context like this one, I think it could be particularly useful in that it does the opposite of what a lot of people seemed to think - it does not imply that the relation is about anything in some fundamental way being of lesser or greater members - it's completely about the context.
As for using the historical marginalisation of black women - sure, they are in a way. But as you say, it's not inaccurate or offensive to see that the historical experience of black women in our culture is particular, and that is what the idea of subset is referring to. I don't think it would necessarily be offensive to compare that to some other marginalised group - we do often compare the struggles of one group to another, or a situation in a particular context, and I think we all understand that they may not be identical, but the comparison can help with explaining something.
I think this feels very wrong because of the attempt to compare people who have a lot of cultural privilege, to people who don't. But that really isn't about the use of a logical term to talk about groups, and it obscures the real issue to say so.

9toenails: I'm more with you than you know. Feminism has always been a series of discoveries for me.

When I say Crenshawe's work is important, I don't mean infallible. There are parts of intersectional theory, especially applied intersectional theory, which I could drive a philosophical truck through. That's a shame because work like this is needed.

Defining the terms at the outset establishes the meaning that follows. Intersectional theory helps to do that, within a specified intersections, but people (not just TRAs) have been abusing the method of analysis by plugging in random values as definitions. They like it because as analysis it seems lovely even when wrong.

An example is the definition of "women", with men playing with it as if it were an exclusive club and not a word with a millennia of meaning behind it. TW are the most oppressed, so they belong in "the club" and the "bigots" just need to make room.

"Fairness in sport" is another. meaning the male bodied can fairly compete against the female bodied because if TW are the lowest on the intersectional bingo social justice card, it doesn't matter that women's sports exists solely because the female bodied are at a disadvantage when competing against the male bodied, it only matters that things are fair for the randomly plugged in value of trans rights to sport.

Unfortunately, I think some folks take intersectional analysis as sacred / self-evident, and as an old poli sci prof of mine used to say "When something is 'self-evident', that just means I don't want to talk about it."