Transwomen can't be a subset of women

[literalviolence]

..unless women and transwomen have something in common.

Subset are a part of a larger group of related things.

Thing is, I have nothing in common with trans women. No woman who does not have a gender identity does. There are lots of us who don't have a gender identity.

Thoughts?

You’re right. That would be like saying cats are a subset of dogs. There is nothing all transwomen and women have in common that all men and transmen do not have. Transwomen are a subset of men and transmen are a subset of women.

Women: the set of all persons who are not entitled to declare themselves Transwomen?

Makes perfect sense to me.

Unfortunately the gender people are trying to twist the meaning of the word woman and make it so weak that it literally means anyone who wants to be one, therefore any human at all. Therefore TW can be a subset of the group "women" (formerly known as "all humans") if you apply their dodgy logic.

Perfect, toaster!

Women are the only people who can't be transwomen. So there you have it

But then trans women wouldn't be a subset of that.

Trans women are a subset of men, I would have thought.

I do not disagree

They're men. Not even a subset of men, they're just men.

Your logic is sound OP.

My thinking follow on from the thread about someone asking others to help them articulate the problems with calling people cis. The predicable response of 'it just helps clarify which sub-set of the set of women you were talking about' was regurgitated. I thought what nonsense. Sounds like others agree.

Not only is it nonsense it is offensive and insulting. TW are a subset of the male sex class and I am not and never will be a subset of my sex class so they can fuck right off with that.

Men can’t ever be a subset of women and women can’t ever be a subset of men. The two sexes are opposites.

Cis women and women can both be subsets of the group “identifies as a woman”, but it’s a pretty pointless grouping that absolutely relies on there being a secret, unspoken grouping somewhere of “actually being a woman”.

Sorry, that should have been cis women and trans women. Need more coffee.

The "subset" thing works as long as the definition of woman is "people who say they're women".

Transwomen are a subset of people who say they're women.

But then you're built on top of a circular definition.

Eventually it reduces to "transwomen are people who say they're 'women'" where the people saying that are each using a different definition.

They're a subset of people using a word, not a subset of a concrete group.

English conversations are a subset of chats. And French cats are also a subset of chats, if you define "chats" as "things using the word chat". But that's not a coherent statement about the world, it's a statement about language.

TransMEN are a subset of women surely?

That's basically why Helen Joyce got so into this; her PhD in mathematics told her it's was lunacy based on mathematical categories and sorting, even at higher complex genetic levels. .

Sorting starts in the early years.

You don't need a PhD to get this.

It can also be seen as racist when TRAs list off 'subsets' of women and plonk white makes next to blank women as being ultra repressed.

Yes. And their needs as such will be 'different' compared to other groups of women based on the medical requirements they have which was the initial point of intersectionality. The group that get most overlooked imo is any girl/ woman born into poverty. And any girl/ woman who's been sexually abused.

Somewhere along the line oppression Olympics came along and simplistic heirarchies imagined which isn't straight forward pigeonholing.

But people treat it as basic eyfs sorting as if sorting shapes and colours.

It should be based on needs and vulnerabilities. All women are more vulnerable than any male for 100s of reasons due to sex.

This stuff only matters because women's bodies are entirely different to males' and thus have entirely different medical and social needs.

I agree with @NecessaryScene - the TW sub set works if the definition of woman is "people who think they are women (using their own interpretation of the word "woman)".

Of course, the largest sub set of that group would be women defining themselves biologically, outnumbering the TW sub set by at least 2 billion people.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

@literalviolence you silly thing, you’re little lady brain has obviously NOT thought about hair, nails, shoes and handbags. Surely that’s what makes a woman?!