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?

Great post, @nepeta.

They probably also experience hostility from people based on people not wanting anyone with an open ‘sexual deviancy’ anywhere near the women and children of their community. And no, I’m not saying that means they’re all a danger. It’s just pretty normal for communities to not like transgressive types, especially of a sexual nature.

I can believe that quite a lot of men see both gay men and trans women are lesser types of men and don't really want them in men's spaces.

The so-called "progressive" ones put up with gay men in their spaces because gay men are not claiming to be women and have nowhere else to go, and also because it's no longer politically acceptable to object to gay people, but they are delighted to say, "trans women are women!" in order to get them out of men's spaces and foist them on women instead.

The ones who don't style themselves as progressive might be more aggressive, engaging in open hostility to these two groups.

But I don't think I would call it homophobia. They don't see men who have sex with men and men who identify as women as being the same, other than perhaps in the most general terms (i.e. they're all "freaks").

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a man not wanting gay men in men's spaces is homophobia and a man not wanting trans women in men's spaces is transphobia, but only one of these two things can be said out loud and spun as progressive.

It's not transphobic for women not to want trans women in their spaces, because they don't want any male people in their spaces, so it has nothing to do with the person being trans.

Forcing the term [cis] on us is like a religious sect which calls non-believers heathens demanding that all non-believers also call themselves 'heathens.' And when non-believers complain, they are told that all 'heathens' means is a non-believer of the tenets of that sect. Nothing to see here, move on.

Absolutely - a great analogy, nepeta!

Every cell in the body is xx or xy whether you're male, female or intersex - that old entirely unrelated chestnut TRAs like to draw on.

Some people argue earth is flat. That's ok, nod an smile. The idiocy is legislating to 'be kind' without discriminating between rationality and enforcing an individual's irrationality on the whole of society.

Clearly need more with derogatory cis woman spiel.

??

It is.

I'd say that 'heathen' is a mild term in comparison though. 'Infidel' or 'heretic' with the whole 'subhuman and should die' and 'damned for eternity' is nearer. This is the stuff of spittle flecked religious hysteria with witch burning than a mild 1950s middle class C of E thing.

And no. Of course men with gender identities aren't a subset of women. It's part of a whole lot of bollocks (verbal and otherwise) shoved on women to try and justify the bloody awful snatch and grab and colonialist behaviour of men who want to use women and their spaces. With varying agendas.

Which is mostly considered by other men to be fine until said men break those women a bit too much while using them, particularly while wearing pink leggings, and the press kick off.

It's a verbal fig leaf. There's a lot of them. Said men get really arsy when you pull the fig leaf away and state it plainly.

I wonder if this has been revived because of Montgomery's tweet.

https://x.com/misshumancat553/status/1737082965446856894?s=20

It was :

"What stupid fuck taught GCs the line "women are not a subset of their own sex" lol. Can't believe how many people blindly repeat that. How are there that
many people who don't know what subset means"

And another tweet

For the idiots in the comments, regardless of your view on trans rights the following are true:
1) X is a subset of X
2) straight women (97% of GC women and about 20% of GCs) are a subset of women. So are white women and tall women

and another

Obviously I'm right about the maths and anyone can just look it up, but also if you believe trans men are a subset of women then you believe cis women are a subset of women, so even in GC ideology the argument I'm discussing is stupid

There seems to be a lot of cyclical discussion going on. It all seems rather sleight of hand. I cannot work out quite what Montgomerie is trying to show here and I have given up because there is just so many tweets that I have not got time to read them to work it out.

I think what Montgomerie might be saying is that women who think they are women, and women who think they are men, are two subsets of the category 'women'.

Which is fair enough, but kind of pointless.

What a silly point that this Montgomerie person is making. It's the mathematical point that a subset can be the whole set and still be considered a subset. So, if "women" is defined as all people who are biologically female, then women are technically a subset of their own sex, in mathematical terms.

This of course completely ignores the fact that people use the term "subset" in general conversation to always mean a "proper subset". ie a subset that is smaller than the containing set. So the phrase "women are not a subset of their own sex" should be read as "women are not a [proper] subset of their own sex". Only someone looking at that sentence in very very bad faith would take any other meaning from it. And certainly no mathematician is using that phrase to do any set theory calculations.

I think the only point that Montgomerie is trying to make is that "GC" people are all much stupider than Montgomerie! And a side order of trying to prove through wordplay that transwomen are correctly defined as female. Which is transparent nonsense.

In maths, set A is a subset of set B if set B contains all the elements in set A. This means every set is a subset of itself, since it contains all of the elements in itself.

They’re correct mathematically, but clearly happy to forget that a set without a meaningful definition is merely a collection of arbitrary items.

Yes. But we all surely know that all female people are the entire subject of female people, in addition they are called women and girls. So, under the category of female people, there is women as a subset and girls as a subset. And that women is only female people who have reached maturity.

Montgomery is high on their own self described influencer 'fame' I think. They think they have discovered some wonderful gotcha, but it really is fuckwittery.

Once someone has told you they subscribe to a personal reality that excludes facts they don't like, you need to make a decision on how much weight you're prepared to give anything else they say.

No a man is not a type of woman. However sad this fact makes the man. No, women will not all be pretending otherwise for the benefit of men.

I didn't really follow Monty's line of argument, but it didn't seem important.

You can either believe that a woman is an adult human female, or that it's someone who identifies with/subscribes to some or all of the various social bits & bobs which have over the years grown up around adult human females. Monty is in the second camp. Good for her.

“Monty” is a misogynistic male. That much has been shown to be true year after year after year. Once a misogynist always a misogynist.

And I do genuinely believe Montgomery hates female people unless they fawn over Montgomery.

What?

Who's "mostly hetero men"?

If you are referring to transwomen as hetero men, that implies they are men in dresses who fancy women. First, they are not men, and second they are predominantly attracted to the same birth sex (men).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8118227/

"95.2% of trans women were sexually attracted to members of the same birth sex"

That they are not men is your belief system. It's is not everybody's. Religious tolerance. Try some.

So they're gay men in dresses.

If you are referring to transwomen as hetero men, that implies they are men in dresses who fancy women. First, they are not men, and second they are predominantly attracted to the same birth sex (men).

In what way are they not men?

And do you have any stats on who they are predominantly attracted to? Because there seem to be an awful lot of people identifying as lesbians now.

First, they are not men

Please explain what is different about "trans women" when compared to men that makes them "not men".

And yet this study from the USA shows a different story to 95% of males with a gender identity of ‘woman’ being attracted to male people.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-16654-z

I’d be very hesitant making such bold generalisations. Considering how many consider themselves lesbians, I would also think that simple anecdotal evidence via social media shows that there are plenty of male trans people attracted to female people and let’s not forget that can also be bisexual as well.

Yes there will be variations (I referenced the US government's National Institutes of Health study), and the reference you used (17.6% straight) does not equate to mostly "hetero men"... nor are they men.