WTF India Willoughby Racist tweet

[badbaduncle]

twitter.com/KDansky/status/1597292701728137216?cxt=HBwWgICjjfvP3KosAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email

I don't understand this tweet at all - wtf does India mean? 'All one word"

Every time a MTF Transitioner (thanks for new description) gets called out, they always revert to aggression and misogyny. It happens every time. So, basically, they act like a horrible man.

Mumsnet is like a real life version of Taboo at times.

It really is. Who'd have thought that "subset" would be one of the words assigned to the dustbin of history.

Also if black women are the only women who are no longer a subset of women isn't that rather othering?

Look I'm not black so I'm not going to speak for black women. I have seen that they have asked us not to call them a subset of women.

You do you.

"Don't use the word subset even in its correct context because it is offensive, but I am not going to provide alternative wording that will not cause offence".

Got it.

All of them or just a ....um...

I said 'White women are a relatively small subsection of women.', before this strand of the discussion took hold. We'll probably get told off by someone if we reframe discussions of the use of the word 'subset' and similar in those terms too.

.

I'd like the posters who object to "subset" to explain what they think the word means, because we are clearly talking past each other.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

we aren't just talking about this conversation. We are talking about wider conversations. Black women (IIRC in this thread too?) have asked people not to refer to them in that way. Isn't that enough? Seems a bit off not to listen to them when they are talking.

We are not doing maths. We don't need to classify women as mathematical objects!
What a weird fixation!

The word “subset” is not the problem, it’s saying that TW are a subset of women in the same way that black women are that is the problem. A) because they are not - black women are women, trans women are not. And b) because choosing black women for that comparison is racist. If TW are comparable to black women, that’s suggesting black women are like transwomen I.e. not actually female. It’s also dubious to pick black women for this comparison because it shows an assumption that white or non-black women are the default woman and black women are “other”. And this is when TRAs are always insinuating that GC people are all white and there’s a “white feminism” that doesn’t allow black women in, which is bollocks. Loads of black and Asian and other women all over the world are both leading and grassroots feminists and always have been. The whole point of feminism is that it’s about all female people and the persecution and discrimination we all face. But as ever, genderists project.

I can actually see how people think “subset” might be derogatory or insulting - like subnormal, suboptimal, substandard etc. it’s not at all, it just means a group within a larger group. But if gender ideologues thought it meant a lesser kind of women, they wouldn’t say it about TW.

still maybe it will change in meaning and become a proscribed word.

It’s also not insulting to apply mathematical terms to groups of people. If no one did that, how would they be able to use statistics to understand trends, populations and people’s needs and so on?

For example women who need a smear are a subset of women, we need to understand that subset, how many there are and how best to communicate with them. Talking about “subsets” is just part of analysing groups. It’s no more insulting than Vern diagrams.

i don’t know about black women asking not be called a subset, but maybe this is in the context of the TW comparison? If not, and they just don’t want to be called a subset, well - they are, just like white women are and every other female group as explained by PPs. But maybe because of the “sub” part it’s been misunderstood and so will end up being replaced by another word. Like withinset or something.

I think the take-home point here is that India is disgustingly racist.

^ The person India, not the country, before some Monitor reports me for writing off a whole country...

@BatCheeseIsFine thank you for articulating it better.

Black women (IIRC in this thread too?) have asked people not to refer to them in that way. Isn't that enough?

It's not enough. People make demands of us all the time. If would be impossible to comply with all of them. It is not enough for someone to ask something and expect everyone else to go along with it no questions or critical thinking allowed.

Seems a bit off not to listen to them when they are talking.

Also it is possible to listen to someone and not agree with them. I am listening to you but I do not agree that I should change my language based on the argument that you have offered.

I'd certainly agree transactivists should knock off calling black women a subset off women in a false equivalence to transwomen who they claim are a subset of women but aren't.

So because you don't agree, you're saying it's a demand that's impossible to comply with - even though women have said they don't want to be referred to that way?
You do realise right, that you're doing the exact same thing as people who use the word cis towards someone who doesn't want to be called it?
Exact same behaviour.
Racism and transphobia are obviously not the same, but as said earlier the issues are!

So because you don't agree, you're saying it's a demand that's impossible to comply with

I didn't say it's impossible to comply with. I'm saying that I don't think the argument made is a very compelling one and it's a demand that I choose not to comply with.

even though women have said they don't want to be referred to that way?

I don't tend to do things simply because people tell me to. If I did I would call transwomen "women" and I would comply with "preferred pronouns."

You do realise right, that you're doing the exact same thing as people who use the word cis towards someone who doesn't want to be called it?

I've already explained why I don't agree that this is the exact same thing as people who use the word "cis". And frankly I'm not into policing other people's language so I'm not going to lose any more sleep over it than if they call me a heretic.

"Black women are a subset of women" is true of course, but it's a weird thing to come out with, as if they're not prototypical women, somehow at the boundary of womanhood, and we need reminding that they are in fact women. (When the maths teacher says "squares are a subset of rectangles", her point is to counter the misconception that they're not.)

We can and ought to challenge a statement having such an unpleasant subtext, but needn't object to innocuous uses of subset in data analysis and the like.

Barracker's example is spot on:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3556691-a-subset-of-women?reply=86243815&utm_source=thread&utm_medium=share

Oh, I miss Barracker.

The argument that women (of any colour, religion, age) are a subset of women is not offensive in and of itself, used for proper purpose.

Entirely correct. And subset as a term has been used since forever without offence.

So long as the parent group 'women' has clear criteria, all indisputable members of that parent group may be subdivided into subgroups if that subdivision serves a useful purpose.

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.

And that's why it's offensive. Not because of the term itself, but the way it's being utilised by transactivists.

Which is why the intent to offend is obvious when it's a transactivist speaking.

A doctor trying to statistically analyse the effect of smear tests using the word subset to refer to women who have them, is not trying to be offensive.

I didn't say it's impossible to comply with. I'm saying that I don't think the argument made is a very compelling one and it's a demand that I choose not to comply with

Um....

It's not enough. People make demands of us all the time. If would be impossible to comply with all of them

Ok

I do not see the vase majority of TW as woman. That does not make me an awful person. I will respect them, call them by their chosen name - use she etc. But they are not the same as me.

The spacing between trans and woman is very deliberate by TRAs so they they are included as a subset of woman. No matter how much they wish that to be, they are not, and I don't think it does anyone any favours to pretend otherwise.

I try and respect others as much as possible but it's hard when so many of them have no respect for me or my daughter, or my mother, aunts, nieces etc etc. Why do females not deserve any respect? I don't know much about Esther K but I suspect I wouldn't agree with her on most things. I don't think what she said in her tweet was bad but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been occasions where she crossed the line that I have. She did not deserve the reply she got and there can be no occasion where a reply like that and the constant doubling down since is acceptable. Willoughby did not reply like that because Esther us transphobic. The reply was because Esther us a black woman and willoughby is a racist individual who can't even hide it.

I use transwoman actually as a politeness. The person is not female, but they do not wish to be know as male. They are not a woman though and I am not a cis woman so trans woman should never be used.

I could refer to people as male? Is that better? It's tempting considering the lack of respect for females.

I don't tend to do things simply because people tell me to. If I did I would call transwomen "women" and I would comply with "preferred pronouns

So if people were to carry on calling you cis then you'd be fine with that.
Seeing as it's a demand that someone doesn't have to go along with or because they've told you not to?
if you do have a problem with someone still doing that after you've said you don't like it, y ou've got some serious double standards / hypocrisy going on there.

Should read because you've not they