[chemeng]

My point was more a question/observation as to why this is contentious, but "X for Women" is not seen as contentious.

While I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I agree with you that "tribalism" is generally problematic. However, you'll also find that "tribalism" has also been essential throughout history for the persistence of marginalized people and their cultures. There is an inherent tension in many places and times throughout history between identity and assimilation.

> but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

The issue is not the power of the identifier, but the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines.

Which brings me back to my original point, why do we not see the same ire when talking about resources directly aimed at specific underserved needs of women?

[dragonwriter]

> why this is contentious, but "X for Women" is not seen as contentious.

“X for Women” is seen as contentious. In fact, “X for Women" articles on HN often have all the same arguments, with gender in place of race, as this thread, with very slight changes, with focus on serving the unmet needs of women with regard to X painted as sexist and equivalent to external regulation based on gender role stereotypes just as this is compared to state-mandated segregated services.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Being black, but not a woman, it's difficult for me to validate the premise that people aren't as much in arms about "women's issues" as they are about "racial issues."

However, while tribalism is definitely a thing, women are generally seen as being included in the tribe. Perhaps that's why you see it as being less contentious.

I'll also point out that this "the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines" is exactly what results from the power of the identifier.