Social Justice

Intersectionality 101

The kids are all fight.

|

Available on Amazon now!

The Women's March came to Washington, D.C., on January 21, 2017, the day after Donald Trump's inauguration. Its purpose was to call attention to the incoming president's history of appalling behavior toward women—behavior to which Trump had all but admitted in the infamous hot-mic moment during an Access Hollywood taping. "When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump had said. "You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy."

This was a statement that rightly offended millions of Americans of all political stripes—Trump's electoral fortunes were never lower than immediately after the tape's release—and thus the march held the promise of uniting the country around a universal, positive message: It's not OK to abuse women.

More than half a million people descended on D.C. for the march, making it the largest protest in the United States since the Vietnam War era. It was a fairly awe-inspiring spectacle. Walking just a few blocks from my apartment, I was greeted by a sea of pink hats. Many of the protesters had chosen to reclaim Trump's own vulgar language, and I saw dozens of signs bearing some variant of the slogan "This pussy grabs back." Others were less confrontational: A young woman with pink streaks in her brown hair held a sign that said, "To love, we must survive; to survive, we must fight; to fight, we must love." Her friend stood next to her, waving a sign that featured a hand-drawn Donald Trump with the universally recognized emoji for excrement atop his head and the words Dump Trump.

All in all, the Women's March was a success for the nascent anti-Trump movement informally known as the #Resistance. More people showed up to protest than to attend the inauguration—something that seemed to infuriate the president, forcing several Trump staffers to make false statements about the relative sizes of the crowds. (This was the genesis of presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway's now infamous line about "alternative facts.")

Yet many of the young leftists I interviewed told me they thought the protest was a disgrace. According to them, it became too inclusive.

"That's actually fucking right," said Laila, a 26-year-old Muslim woman and political activist, when I asked if that was why she did not attend the march. Although she lives in Washington, D.C., Laila skipped town that weekend. "I'm tired of being a poster child for someone else's attempt at inclusivity," she explained.

In her view, by including so many different perspectives, organizers had watered down the message and ended up marginalizing the people who should have been the focus. They took "an approach that co-opted the narratives of many who have already been fighting in this space, specifically, black women."

Laila was hardly the only young activist who felt that way about the Women's March. Juniper, a 19-year-old trans woman, castigated the event as "super white" and "super cisgender-centric." (Cisgender, the opposite of transgender, describes people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth.) She was skeptical of it at best, she said. And others were even harsher.

"I hated it," said Ma'at, a student of color at American University. "It was super cis-centric. It was exclusive of trans identities. It was whitewashed. It just in general was very co-opting and ineffective."

"I just felt like it wasn't very sincere," said Yanet, a student of color at the University of Maryland. "It just felt like a moment for people who aren't as involved or didn't care before to feel like, 'Oh, I did something.'"

"Insincere" and "ineffective" will strike many readers as surprising ways for leftist activists to describe the most well-attended mass march in four decades. But it makes perfect sense when one considers the priorities of the new activist culture, which prefers quality—intellectual purity—over quantity. A protest is successful only if it highlights the correct issues, includes the right people—people who check all the appropriate boxes—and is organized by a ruling coalition of the most oppressed. This is what intersectionality dictates.

Though the words intersectionality and inclusion sound like synonyms, they are actually in conflict with each other—a conflict perfectly encapsulated by the Women's March and activists' dissatisfaction with it. In case there was any confusion, Roxane Gay, a celebrated feminist author and voice of the left, tweeted this in response to the idea of people who oppose abortion participating in the event: "Intersectional feminism does not include a pro-life agenda. That's not how it works!"

Intersectionality is the operating system for the modern left. Understanding what it means and where it comes from is essential for comprehending the current state of activism on college campuses, at protests in major cities, and elsewhere.

Put simply, the idea is that various kinds of oppression—racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, economic inequality, and others—are simultaneously distinct from each other and inherently linked. They are distinct in the sense that they stack: A black woman suffers from two kinds of oppression (racism and sexism), whereas a white woman suffers from just one (sexism). But they are also interrelated, in that they are all forms of oppression that should be opposed with equal fervor. For instance, a feminist who isn't sufficiently worked up about the rights of the gay community is at odds with the tenets of intersectionality. She is a feminist, but she is not an intersectional feminist.

Holly, a 23-year-old Berkeley student whom I met at the April 2017 People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., told me that for her, intersectionality means all issues are "connected and tie in with each other, like indigenous rights, Black Lives Matter, and climate change."

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University, coined the term intersectionality in her 1989 paper "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex." She needed a word to describe the lives of black women who were discriminated against because of both their race and their sex. Their experiences were fundamentally different from those of black men, who were privileged to the extent that they were men, and from those of white women, who were privileged to the extent that they were white.

"Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another," wrote Crenshaw. "If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination."

Crenshaw got the idea from a 1976 federal district court case, DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, in which five black women had sued the auto giant. They argued that G.M.'s policy of laying off the most recently hired employees violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits both racial and gender-based discrimination. Since it had been only a little more than a decade since the law had begun requiring G.M. to hire black and female employees, the most recent hires tended to be black women, the plaintiffs argued.

But the court determined that black women enjoyed no special protection under the law—the employees were protected from racial discrimination and gender-based discrimination, but not from the combined effects of these two categories. "The plaintiffs are clearly entitled to a remedy if they have been discriminated against," wrote the court. "However, they should not be allowed to combine statutory remedies to create a new 'super-remedy' which would give them relief beyond what the drafters of the relevant statutes intended."

DeGraffenreid v. General Motors was Crenshaw's lightbulb moment. Black women lived in the midst of two kinds of discrimination—racism and sexism—and thus languished under an oppressive force greater than the sum of its parts.

"What Kimberlé is saying with intersectionality is that, in order to understand how power operates, you have to understand how people live their lives," says Alicia Garza, an activist and co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement. "Intersectionality is the very basic notion that we live multiple experiences at once. It's not just, 'Oh, I'm black and I'm a woman and I'm a black woman.' It's to say that I'm uniquely discriminated against. I uniquely experience oppression based on standing at the intersection of race and gender."

Though Crenshaw came up with the term, the concept itself predates her. As far back as 1892, the black feminist Anna Julia Cooper had criticized leading anti-racists for failing to advance the cause of black women. "Only the black woman can say when and where I enter, in the quiet undisputed dignity of my womanhood.…Then and there the whole race enters with me," she wrote in A Voice From the South.

For the Boston-based black feminist lesbian organization known as the Combahee River Collective, which existed in the 1970s and early '80s, "simultaneity" was the word used to describe the cumulative impact of the various oppressions they experienced. Their manifesto called not just for the abolition of racism and sexism but for "the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well." Avowed enmity toward all the various -isms: This is the strategy required by the intellectual framework that became known as intersectionality.

Patricia Hill Collins, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, expanded upon Crenshaw's work, publishing Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment in 1990. Taking a cue from Crenshaw, she used the term intersectionality to refer to the interlocking matrices of oppression that serve to marginalize people. Initially focused on race and gender, Collins gave additional consideration to class as a matrix in her 1992 book Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology. Later, she would add sexual orientation to the mix. "Intersectional paradigms view race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and age, among others, as mutually constructing systems of power," she wrote in 2004's Black Sexual Politics. "Because these systems permeate all social relations, untangling their effects in any given situation or for any given population remains difficult."

That's quite the understatement, since every new addition to the list of interrelated oppressions makes the task even more cumbersome. There are more of these categories than most people might imagine, and every year, intellectual peers of Crenshaw and Collins propose new ones. Meanwhile, intersectionality has become a ubiquitous force on college campuses, where young people are taught to perceive all social issues through the lens of interrelated oppression and to find more grievances to add to the pile. Those who grasp the truth of intersectionality are said to be "woke," slang that describes someone who has awakened to the reality of their own privilege and adopted a progressive worldview.

The spread of intersectionality poses some problems for the left, since the theory divides people as often as it unites them. In recent years, Hulu's The Handmaid's Tale, a prestige drama based on feminist author Margaret Atwood's beloved novel, became mandatory #Resistance viewing for its depiction of an oppressive society where women have been enslaved by theocratic authoritarians—a future toward which Trump's America is hurtling, according to many on the left. But the second seasonwhich debuted in 2018, drew criticism: The show was accused of a "failure of intersectionality" because it never grappled with racism, only sexism. "This is a show all about gender—it is built entirely around that concept—but until The Handmaid's Tale learns to make its feminism intersectional, it's going to keep letting its audience down," commented BuzzFeed TV writer Louis Peitzman.

In the years since Crenshaw introduced the term, intersectionality has broadened in both scope (that is, more kinds of oppression have been identified) and reach (more people are aware of the concept and what it implies).

The academy loves intersectionality, and the theory's popularity has soared in sociology, psychology, English, philosophy, history, and other social science and humanities departments. Indeed, more and more universities have created entire academic wings dedicated to studying specific kinds of oppression and explaining how they relate to others. Thus the rise of women's studies, African American studies, Hispanic studies, Asian studies, queer studies, and more.

What began at the intersection of race and sex now includes economic class, gender identity (the gender category to which a person feels attachment, which may be different from the person's biological sex), gender expression (the way a person looks and behaves), sexual orientation, immigration status, disability status, age, religious belief (though certain believers—such as Muslims—are perceived as more oppressed than others), and size (whether you are overweight or not).

In practice, intersectionality frequently forces the left to engage in self-cannibalism. Not all victims of oppression get along, since they're quite often in tension with each other. The intersectional progressive says, in effect: "We must fight racism, and sexism, and homophobia, and transphobia, and the Trump administration's immigration policies, and the wealthy, and global warming, and anti-Muslim bigotry, and ableism, etc." There are millions of people, though, who want to fight some of these things but not others—and if intersectionality requires them to commit to every single cause at once, they simply won't.

Some people might decry racism and sexism without fully understanding or agreeing with the demands of the trans community; indeed, there's a community of feminists who specifically reject the notion that trans women should be considered women. Other people might want economic equality for the poor but hold socially conservative views on gay rights, or oppose Trump's harsh treatment of immigrants but feel ambivalent about climate change. Still others might be strident progressives in nearly all respects but dissent from the notion that Muslims deserve space in the club when Jews do not.

That's not a theoretical example. In modern progressive parlance, Muslims are oppressed and Israel is the oppressor. Thus, anti-Islamic bias is viewed as a source of oppression, while anti-Semitism is frequently ignored—even though Jews tend to be much more politically progressive than Muslims.

There are three main problems with intersectionality: the education problem, the perfection problem, and the coalition problem.

First, the problem of education. One important implication of intersectionality is that the sole authority on an individual's oppression is the individual in question. White men who are heterosexual and cisgender shouldn't try to "mansplain" the struggles of black women or people of color: They aren't oppressed, so they can never understand what it's like, even if they happen to be extremely progressive or well-educated about left-wing causes.

At the same time, "it's not my job to educate you" is one of the most frequently recited catchphrases in activist circles. "It is not my responsibility as a marginalized individual to educate you about my experience," wrote Elan Morgan in a popular Medium post, which provided 21 arguments for why that statement was correct. The feminist news website Everyday Feminism has highlighted the work of YouTuber and transgender activist Kat Blaque, who opined in a video that it is "demeaning and dehumanizing to explain to people of privilege why people like them have historically and currently oppressed people like me." And in an article for HuffPost, the feminist writer Melanie Hamlett wrote: "Dear Men, It Is Not My Responsibility to Explain Feminism to You." Doing so, she said, required too much "emotional labor."

But here we have an obvious issue: Asking people about their oppression—even earnestly, out of a sincere desire to become better educated—is discouraged, and there's no other way to gain this knowledge, since the oppressed themselves are the only acceptable experts. This makes it frustratingly difficult to have supportive conversations about oppression, let alone tense ones.

The second problem, which follows logically from the first, is the perfection problem. Very few people can grasp with 100 percent accuracy the various requirements of intersectional progressivism, given that they aren't allowed to interrogate the oppressed, who are the only source of knowledge about their oppression. I once saw this issue explained perfectly in a blog post, written by a woman complaining about all that was required of her. "As an ally, my job is to not impose my own beliefs of what's 'right,' but instead amplify the voices of the oppressed people that I'm trying to be an ally for," she wrote. "Except that I shouldn't bug them about educating me, because that's not what they're there for. And it's my duty to talk about the issue of oppression in question, because it's the job of all of us, rather than the oppressed people, to fix it. Except that when I talk, I shouldn't be using my privilege to drown out the voices of the oppressed people. Also, I should get everything right, 100% of the time. Including the terminology that the oppressed people in question themselves disagree on."

Even the most well-intentioned person is bound to slip up. My Facebook feed recently served up a note from someone asking for help finding shelter for a wheelchair-bound neighbor. The immediate reply was this: "The only resource I have for you at the moment is in regards to the words wheelchair bound," accompanied by a link to a HuffPost article titled "Stop Saying 'Wheelchair-Bound' and Other Offensive Terms." You probably didn't know wheelchair-bound was offensive terminology—I certainly didn't—and in any case, you shouldn't ask someone in a wheelchair what the correct terminology is, because it's not that person's job to educate you.

In The Daily Beast, Kristen Lopez described the 2018 Marvel superhero film Ant-Man and the Wasp as "ableist"—that is, disparaging of people with disabilities—for including a character who suffers from chronic pain and is attempting to cure her condition. "Instead of helping Ava find a way to cope [with] (and not necessarily eradicate) her disability, the film seeks to provide a cure." That's a bad thing, Lopez wrote, because not all disabled people want to overcome their disability.  Who knew you could run afoul of disability activism by making a movie in which a character who suffers from chronic pain tries to overcome it?

The writer, academic, and activist Fredrik deBoer once described an event he witnessed: "A 33-year-old Hispanic man, an Iraq war veteran who had served three tours and had become an outspoken critic of our presence there, [was] lectured about patriarchy by an affluent 22-year-old white liberal arts college student." The veteran had committed a crime of the "wheelchair-bound" variety: He had called on other veterans to "man up" and denounce the war. What he could not have known, since he had spent much of his adult life on a battlefield rather than in feminist studies lectures, is that man up is a gendered term and thus unacceptable.

According to deBoer, these incidents frequently result in would-be allies growing disheartened with the cause. Nobody's perfect—and that's an issue for intersectionality, since it demands total adherence to all facets of its approach.

The third problem, which grows out of the first two, is the coalition problem: The demands of intersectionality make it extremely difficult to form strategic relationships for the purpose of advancing a single issue.

Take legalizing marijuana, for example. There are a lot of Americans who subscribe to a diverse range of ideologies with some interest in the issue. There are liberals and leftists who think using marijuana is no big deal, there are libertarians who think the government has no right to tell consenting adults what they can put in their own bodies, and there are even some conservatives who think enforcing federal marijuana prohibition is a waste of law enforcement resources and a blow to states' rights. People from all three of these groups could and should work together to advance the cause, despite their myriad differences on other issues. But intersectionality gets in the way, since the intersectional progressive only wants to work with people who oppose all the various strains of oppression—not just the ones relevant to the narrow issue of marijuana policy.

It's difficult to imagine that the campaign for gay marriage would have gone as relatively smoothly as it did had intersectionality been as ubiquitous a decade ago as it is today. This was in some sense the last nonintersectional leftist cause: Activists who supported it were extremely disciplined and specifically avoided tying it to other, more fringe issues. Believers in same-sex marriage, in fact, worked tirelessly to bring people on the political right into the movement, stressing that gay couples only wanted legal equality and sought to form the same kinds of family arrangements that social conservatives believe are desirable for society. The marriage equality movement even turned to Ted Olson, a Republican and former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, to represent it in the lawsuit against California's Proposition 8, which had banned gay marriage in the state.

One of the strongest voices on this issue was Andrew Sullivan, a gay right-of-center writer who made the case for same-sex marriage in a 1989 New Republic article: "Marriage provides an anchor, if an arbitrary and weak one, in the chaos of sex and relationships to which we are all prone," he wrote. "It provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security, and the healthy rearing of the next generation. We rig the law in its favor not because we disparage all forms of relationship other than the nuclear family, but because we recognize that not to promote marriage would be to ask too much of human virtue. In the context of the weakened family's effect upon the poor, it might also invite social disintegration."

That's a fundamentally conservative argument, crafted specifically to appeal to people on the right. And it worked. Support for gay marriage increased from 27 percent in 1996 to 67 percent two decades later. It is now legal everywhere in the United States.

This happy development is in large part due to the work of a coalition that would be impossible to put together in the age of intersectionality. Sullivan and Olson would almost certainly have been chased away by activists refusing to engage with them due to their conservative views on other policy matters.

Contrast the triumph of gay marriage with some examples of the setbacks and infighting that occur within an intersectional framework. During the June 2017 Chicago Pride Parade, organizers asked Laurel Grauer, a Jewish lesbian, to leave. Grauer had dared to carry a flag bearing a rainbow (the symbol of the LGBT community) and the Star of David. She was told her display made people feel unsafe. One might expect everybody who supports equal rights and dignity for LGBT people to be welcome at pride events, but from the standpoint of the organizers, the march was intended to be intersectional—meaning it was both pro-LGBT and "anti-Zionist," or opposed to the state of Israel's existence.

For the modern left, Jews are outranked by minority groups whose oppression is considered more serious than, and to some degree at odds with, their own. The incident at the Chicago Pride Parade is not a one-off. Linda Sarsour, an activist and Women's March leader, has made the dubious claim that anti-Semitism is "different than anti-black racism or Islamophobia because it's not systemic."

Sarsour and fellow Women's March leaders Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez have drawn criticism for their ties to controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who is widely considered to be anti-Semitic. Farrakhan has compared Jewish people to termites and asserted that "powerful Jews are my enemy." He made the latter remark at a February 2018 rally attended by Mallory, who distanced herself from his rhetoric but would not condemn the man himself—and who was steadfast in her commitment to working with his group.

Or consider an illuminating episode involving the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a left-wing group that got a huge boost from Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign. In January 2018, the DSA tweeted that it would be unveiling its Medicare for All campaign, an effort to extend the national health insurance program to everyone in the country.

This was an unsurprising development—empowering the government to provide more comprehensive health care coverage is a fairly standard goal of liberal activists, not just the far left. More surprising was the furious blowback the DSA received from many of its own members who identified as disabled. The DSA's Medicare for All committee had apparently failed to consult the Disability Working Group about the campaign's rollout, which led the latter to protest that they were being excluded from relevant decision making. Since disabled people are especially affected by health care policy, the Medicare for All group had essentially failed to let disabled people be the experts on their own oppression—an intersectionality no-no.

Amber A'Lee Frost, a Medicare for All proponent and prominent DSA member known for co-hosting the left-wing Chapo Trap House podcast, hit back, accusing her critics of trying to sabotage the movement with their "pathological anti-social behavior." This made matters much worse: The comment was perceived as an attack on the autistic community.

Frost had committed ableism. Several dozen DSA members signed a petition demanding that she "immediately remove herself from any involvement, official or unofficial, with DSA's Medicare for All campaign, and should she not, that she be removed." This was necessary, because intersectionality means casting suspicion on organizing efforts if these efforts do not make the marginalized the center of attention.

College campuses, where the grievances are significant but the stakes are low, play host to some of the most farcical examples of intersectionality-induced bickering. A particularly revelatory crisis emerged at Evergreen State College in Washington during the spring 2017 semester.

Every year, activists there organized a Day of Action during which students of color would deliberately leave campus as a means of protest against racism. But in 2017, the activists decided to try something new: They would ask students of color to remain and white people to leave.

This tactic didn't sit well with Bret Weinstein, a biology professor at Evergreen. Weinstein was a progressive—he had supported Sanders over Hillary Clinton the year before—and sympathized with the activists' goals, but he felt that the new plan for the Day of Action was unsound. "There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles, and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away," Weinstein told an administrator. The latter, he contended, "is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself."

In response, activists surrounded Weinstein outside his classroom and accused him of being a racist. "This is not a discussion!" they told him. A student named Hadley later told Vice correspondent Michael Moynihan that her message to Weinstein was: "You don't get to spread this problematic rhetoric."

A subsequent dialogue between the activist students and college President George Bridges similarly spiraled out of control. During the meeting, activist students repeatedly belittled Bridges, a meek, bow-tie-wearing white man, even instructing him to keep his hands at his sides and stop pointing at people. "Fuck you, George!" one student said. "We don't want to hear a goddamn thing you have to say." When Bridges asked the students to let him leave the room so he could use the lavatory, they told him to hold it.

Hadley would tell Moynihan that Weinstein should go be a "racist and a piece of shit" somewhere else. The campus police said they could no longer guarantee the professor's safety on campus, and he eventually resigned.

Each of these examples shows how activists who worship at the altar of intersectionality felt compelled to turn on people for committing venial sins. It's not enough to share the intersectional progressives' goals relating to a specific issue: One must also support their tactics, know their language intuitively, defer to the wisdom of the oppressed without either speaking on their behalf or expecting them to speak for themselves, and commit to every other interrelated cause.

The intersectional approach often seems petty and performative. The symbol of the gay rights movement, the rainbow flag, was designed by activist Gilbert Baker in 1978. Its colors were pink, red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, indigo, and violet, which he said represented sex, life, healing, sunlight, nature, magic, serenity, and spirit. In 2017, Philadelphia debuted a new rainbow flag to celebrate Pride Month—this one including brown and black stripes, in recognition of people of color.

Many members of the LGBT community—particularly younger ones, according to BuzzFeed—liked the new intersectional flag, which takes a stand against homophobia and racism. But many older LGBT activists were confused, since none of the original colors reflected ethnicity at all. Will the flag eventually have to add stripes for Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans? What about the disabled community and those who languish under the oppression of sizeism?

The thinkers who first defined intersectionality probably hoped that by linking all kinds of oppression together, they could force people to fight against a wider swath of bad things. The University of Maryland's Collins hinted at this when she wrote that "many African Americans deny the existence of sexism, or see it as a secondary concern that is best addressed when the more pressing problem of racism has been solved. But if racism and sexism are deeply intertwined, racism can never be solved without seeing and challenging sexism." Collins wanted to tie the problems together so that everybody fighting one would have to fight the other, too.

But the more -isms added to the pile, the more tenuous this approach becomes. It's all well and good to say that sexism is as pervasive a problem as racism, but the intersectional activist of 2019 is reaching much further and making many more demands. From the standpoint of this movement, a woman marching against the Republican Party, against police brutality, against war, against sexual violence, and for Israel's existence is not an ally or potential ally: She is an enemy. She is part of the problem. She has failed the test of intersectionality. She is not, as the poet Elisa Chavez put it, "intersectional as fuck." She might as well have voted for Trump.

A hopelessly divided opposition movement that cannot resist cannibalizing itself over intersectionality-induced disagreements is not going to be very effective. In fact, it's probably a good recipe for the continued political dominance of the Trump coalition.

Adapted from Robby Soave's new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trumpby permission of All Points Books/St. Martin's Press.

NEXT: Qualified Immunity Is an Unqualified Disgrace 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

148 responses to “Intersectionality 101

  1. Intersectionality – an excuse to be a miserable fuck.

    1. I do find myself wondering how such people find time to live some sort of real life. I suspect that many of them just don’t; hell, maybe they don’t want to.

      1. If you feel that you have been wronged in life (born ugly, always second best to your sister Marcia, etc), the best days are when you get to tell people about it so you feel special. These clowns get off on it. To them nothing is better than posting on the Twitter about how they found some oppression or told so and so off and now “I literally can’t even”.

        1. Let’s hope they all die. Soon.

    2. AGREED! Students today, as in the sixties and seventies, prefer to protest (which helps NO ONE!) rather than work their asses off and get good grades so the multi-thousands of dollars their parents paid for their education wouldn’t be a total loss. Sadly, these dimwits think they will be the better for their idiotic rantings.

      1. Semantic aggression happens- Intersectionality is but one of the litcrit buzzwords that have been spreading through popular media like a plague since the academic left hailed them as more fit to print than others:

        https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/06/all-hockey-sticks-thats-fit-to-print.html

  2. Reminds me of how Stalin ordered the purge of many of his fellow Bolsheviks, most famously of Trotsky, who had already fled Russia. It’s actually fortunate for the rest of the population that these intersectional types fight among themselves: otherwise, normal folks would be the first to be put into their ovens or gulags.

    I’m the first to admit I don’t get their mentality. I was raised to be kind to others, try to look past differences, and above all to show good manners by not pointing out the obvious (e.g. “that guy’s an amputee!” Or “look, she’s wearing a head covering!”) To codify this into both a religion and a ruthless caste system is both very bizarre and more than a bit stupid.

    1. If these idiots only extended the concept of intersectionality to its logical conclusion, they would realize we are all unique individuals with our own experiences, problems, and values, and that no one knows what another person wants or us going through. Therefore, no one can speak for anyone rlse and we should all let each other lead our own lives and get the government, and other groups that impose their values, to get out of the way.

      1. +1000

      2. Nicely put

      3. Well said!

      4. I love this response, Chipper!

      5. Agree 100%. Treating people as sovereign unique individuals is always the best course of action.

        1. The problem with these intersectional dipshits is that they do NOT want to live and let live and get government out of our lives. They need government to use its force to punish their oppressors for past injustices. Of course, they fail to see that following this to its logical conclusion will end with them going to the guillotine too. I think being privileged enough to even have a clue what intersectionality means is pretty damned priviledged.

        2. I agree, but this is not how fascists (the students!) do things.

      6. With the obvious exception that cis-white-males never can experience or understand oppression at any level.

        1. I am technically a white cis-gendered male. But the white part is negotiable since I am half Greek (oppressed by Turks for 500 years and more recently by Germans during WWII) and one quarter Jew (oppressed by everybody for thousands of years) and Irish (oppressed by Brits for hundreds of years. So all I need to do is not be cis-gendered. Ok-I will put on my wife’s panties. Now can I be intersectional too?

          1. Hey, I’m not gonna fight it. According to intersectionality theory, my white cis-het male power is unlimited! Bwuhahahahaha!

            And it gets better: I don’t have to do a thing to exercise this vast power. I can oppress wide swaths of victim classes by just sitting here, existing. If I cut a fart while I’m sitting here, it acts as a multiplier!

          2. Do you loan out that one quarter at interest?

      7. They dont want individuality. They want power through victimhood.

      8. Only half of your logical interpretation of the new activism is correct. Yes, intersectionality taken to extremes will result in myriad sub-sub-sub-categories manifest as individual people. But no, they will not then reject government mandates but instead will demand equally myriad protected categories and mandated protections and programs–which will essentially require that we all work for the government.

        1. I guess it’s not guaranteed that they won’t try to implement the absurd consequence of the theory as you describe. But I like to think that normal people will decide that they are full of shit well before it comes to that.

        2. They’re dirty hippies and should be beaten. Like every dirty hippie.

      9. word.

      10. +1

    2. To all Intersectionalitiesists (or whatever the fuck you are calling your selves these days):

      1) Fuck you if you can’t take a joke.

      2) Fuck you if you don’t want to try to explain your own bizarre behavior.

      3) Fuck you and your goddamn grievance totem pole.

      4) Fuck you.

      5) Fuck you.

      6) Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

      7) Fuck you, go die in a fire.

      8) Fuck you.

      Any questions, assholes?

  3. “Insincere” and “ineffective” will strike many readers as surprising ways for leftist activists to describe the most well-attended mass march in four decades.

    Perhaps surprising to the readers of your new book, but not I suspect to Reason subscribers. Anyone paying attention to the current left’s identitarian bent recognizes it is tailor made to fracture that movement into nothingness.

    1. Jordan Peterson has described intersectionalism as on the cusp of discovering individualism. However, that seems to be the hard way to get there.

      1. Yes, let’s hope they get there. There are many paths to the top of the mountain. Eventually, all the paths become one.

      2. Except that it’s not. It’s warmed over communism, with black people, women, gays, etc. shoehorned into the proletariat, and white men joining the rich (and, because why not, the Jews) in the designated oppressor class.

        American workers were too self-evidently well off to develop the hoped for class consciousness, so those Marxist idiots went looking for new ways to categorize people as oppressed so that the vanguard could struggle on their behalf.

        These people are never going to reach individualism because they do not see minorities as individuals. They only see a great lumpenproletariat that they can define and act for however they wish.

        1. ^THIS^

      3. Jordan Peterson has described intersectionalism as on the cusp of discovering individualism.

        They will never get there. The entire point of intersectionality is establishing a framework to bring others under their control. Nothing contrary to this goal will ever be “discovered”. You must join my group, else you’re a racist, and you must submit to my authority, else you’re a racist.

        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

  4. “Cisgender -mentally well adjusted with regards to the physiological sex. Opposite of transgender. Synonym – normal.”

    When you are defining the standard case by it’s rare opposite, you have gotten into a weird place.

    1. ‘Merica.

    2. Sometimes, it takes time for someone to get used to the standard case. Today, I explained to a lady that Israeli dogs bark so much, because Israelis do not castrate their dogs.

  5. “Intersectionality is the operating system for the modern left.”

    It is also the very definition of racism, sexism, and every other -ism in the world. Leftists only look at people to see the color of their skin, the object of their sexual desire, etc., but NEVER to see them as a person. When you refuse to accept the concept of an individual, you cannot advocate for anything except mass conformity without question or deviation from those in command.

    And oh, by the way, that doesn’t work at any level.

    1. The fact that some Lefties hate White people because they think their race is superior and how that is racism, is lost on Lefties.

      rac·ism
      /ˈrāˌsizəm/
      noun: racism
      prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

      The fact that some Lefties hate men because they think their sex is superior and how that is sexism, is lost on Lefties.

      sex·ism
      /ˈsekˌsizəm/
      noun: sexism
      prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of sex.

    2. When I was growing up they had the “million man march” in Washington DC, but only about 150,000 showed up.

    3. Says the guy who believes that exclusion of everyone not in his ethnic cohort is “fundamental to libertarianism”.

      1. When idiots yell “you’re racist” they look like idiots.

        1. And when conservatives hide behind nihilism to avoid acknowledging that their intellectual world view consists entirely of Jesus and lobsters, you’re the smart ones?

          1. Way to prove you’re a bigot. Toure worse than you accused lc of. Dumber version of Kirkland?

            1. Frame flipping? Really? That’s the best you have?

              Besides, only Ken Schultz is good enough to give “I’m rubber you’re glue” the gravitas required to not make it sound idiotic.

              1. You’ve said nothing of value other than calling someone racist. What part of ordered immigration is racist dear? Canada has a niche more limited policy that is based in education and work history for the most part.

                The u.s. allows in 1 million immigrants a year. How racist.

                I’m going back with you’re ignorant.

                The only party pushing segregation and disjunct identity politics is the left. They literally agree with the far right on segregation. The left was forced to get rid of jim crow in the mid 1900s, so they switched to a policy of convincing minorities to self segregate through intersectionality. And you’re so god damn stupid you blame it on the right.

                1. Racially segregated dorms are making a comeback at private colleges—at the insistence of “people of color”.

                2. Ah the left vs right axis.

                  Blue vs red. Socialist vs conservative. Democrat vs Republican.

                  There we are stuck.

                  Libertarians at one time offered another axis. A different way of seeing human interaction.

        2. Especially in America where Americans are not known as a single race.

          1. I was at our fathers day gathering with family and friends which includes Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, latinos, American indian, Irish and other Euro trash and we all decides we were all mutts not a pure bread amongst us and non of us had privilage or were oppressed. I’ll admit there were no African Americans this time because he was at work.

          2. Speak for yourself. Your blood doesn’t come from your parents. It’s made by your body from the food you eat. From the ground where you live.

            That’s American iron in your veins. That’s more important than genes.

      2. You know what? I think that’s unfair. I’ll suspend judgement until I’ve gotten more data. Or, at least until I can go one day without reading about conservatives whining about how evil multiculturalism is and, gosh darnit, why can’t everyone act the same?

        1. Please link once where multiculturalism is looked down upon by the right. Being for same and orderly immigration is not being against multiculturalism dumbass. In fact it is the left against multiculturalism with their attacks on appropriation. You’re pretty ignorant aren’t you.

          1. You’ve got huevos, I’ll give you that.

            I really don’t have the time to go through all of Reason’s comment forums. Be patient, the day is young and I’m sure someone will be along to complain about it.

            1. You said it was every day dumbass. Pick a day. But we know you’re already full of shit.

            2. Ese, I am more irritated by your abject stupidity. Feel free to join Tony in a round of Drano shots.

            3. It’s hard for me to tell what you’re trying to accomplish here.

              Are you *defending* intersectionalism hysteria?

          2. I think it is fair to say that a lot of people here (myself included) don’t like multiculturalism as a positive goal of policy. But have no problem with it as an actual state of affairs. Multiculturalism fails when it becomes about preserving and keeping separate different cultures rather than tolerance and respect for other people.

            1. Well said, zeb

        2. “least until I can go one day without reading about conservatives whining”

          You mean like you are?

    4. To the modern Leftist, the person is only the sum of their labels. I’s a reaction to the Old Left, who tried to deny individuality. The individual of the New Left subconsciously tries to assert his individuality with his own unique set of labels. “Don’t lump me in with the the feminists like I’m just another generic woman, I’m a Black Transsexual Muslim Lesbian who’s short and disabled as well! I’m not part of your group, I’m my own group of one!”

  6. “they let you do it”
    “It’s not OK to abuse women”

    I find it interesting that 3 years later, the cogdis still hasn’t been pointed out and the merits of Trump’s statement weren’t debated. Why did a simple statement of fact (there are loose people) turn into #resist and #impeach45?

    1. Yeah, how dare Trump speak out loud a truth known to every guy who’s ever tried to get a date for Saturday night?

    2. Groupies exist. People who use their sexuality to get favors out of powerful people exist. If a powerful person makes assumptions about what is motivating someone, it could be sexual assault, but what Trump was crudely describing was not sexual assault but a quid pro quo using sex as the currency.

      1. I think he was espousing a generic truth; if you stimulate a woman’s desire for sex (figuratively), she’ll do anything you want. Most women are intoxicated by power and powerful men. Most people don’t like to hear the truth.

        1. This just made me realize I answered my own question; the media wants you to think Trump is a simpleton, which is why they act confused about his statements when the rest of us clearly understand them, but then reporters don’t ask questions to clarify. When Trump does clarify, we see he’s a bit more nuanced and not the simpleton the media purport him to be. That’s why nobody even tries to address these subjects. It would break the narrative.

  7. I’d love to see that intersectional Venn Diagram. Not sure anyone would fit in the middle of that (or would want to!)

    1. I think there are a lot of self loathing lefties who would love to add another section to their oppressedness. But probably not enough to actually hack off a limb.

    2. “I’d love to see that intersectional Venn Diagram. Not sure anyone would fit in the middle of that (or would want to!)”

      If there was any intersection with more than one person, then someone would quickly add another circle.

  8. “I’m tired of being a poster child for someone else’s attempt at inclusivity,”

    Get over yourself – no one really likes you anyways.

    1. “So then they had a March for Women of Color, but I’m also a Lesbian so I felt excluded. I did not feel safe. So I threw rocks.”

  9. I guess the complexity of intersectionality has one plus for its practitioners: they’ll never get to the point where they won’t have something to fuel their “outrage”. They’ll never end up having to live a normal life, get a real job, etc.

  10. I really liked this article-thorough and thought provoking. As a not quite liberal feminist, I have often struggled with intersectionality. It often strikes me that someone who is a feminist and is also pro-trans must not be a feminist at all, that person is just s a democrat. I do intersectionality poorly.

  11. I remember back when people didn’t need pseudo-intellectual excuses to bitch all day at practically everyone.

    Those were the days.

  12. Inter-section-ality: Your blues ain’t like my blues, so get in line [behind me]

  13. “people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth”

    The word you’re looking for is “normal”, for fuck’s sake.

    -jcr

    1. I know a couple of transsexual women, and there’s one question I always wanted to ask them, but will never be brave enough to ask: How can you claim to part of the Sisterhood when you did not grow up female? You never directly experienced growing up female in a patriarchy. You never experienced menstruation. You did not experience puberty as female. You’ll never experience menopause. It’s impossible for you to sit with a group of women and have any sort of shared experienced. So how can you claim to be one with the Sisterhood?

      As a man I can never understand what it’s like to be a woman. An operation and some hormone treatments could not change that for me. Even if I wanted to be, I could never be, a woman.

      Their choice to make that change belongs to them. I will not compel them to remain a man . But they will never be truly woman after growing up as a man.

      1. But you see, they’re oppressed even more because they want the pains of the period, but will never be able to share riding the crimson wave.

        But look at it a different way, when you say they can’t experience anything for being a man. Do you deny, for example, LeBron’s children any part of the black experience, even though they are not likely to have experienced anything like the guy in the projects due tob class and status? Can a single father carrying for six daughters not have some understanding of menstruation even without the physical experience?

      2. An operation and hormone treatments don’t really change that for anyone. But dome people like to play pretend.

    2. The word you’re looking for is “normal”, for fuck’s sake.

      So prescient.

  14. “it’s not my job to educate you”

    This is what snotty leftards say when they’re incapable of making any cogent argument to support their claims of being oppressed.

    -jcr

    1. Compare it with “fuck off, slaver”.

      1. “Compare it with “fuck off, slaver”.”

        That response is seldom used for someone asking a legitimate question. Whereas, the Intersectional response is, as Robby points out, used to stop any questions or any debate.

  15. Post modernism and intersectionality means never having to learn facts or educate yourself.

  16. The trainwreck of ideology. Makes me want to run the AC 24/7 and use extra straws so these morons won’t have a planet to inherit.

    1. If intersectionality is a train wreck of ideology, what is cultural appropriation?

      I submit cultural appropriation is the fragmentary grenade of ideology, with filled baby diapers making up most of the shrapnel. If you stuck and then detonated some C4 at the bottom of a Diaper-Genie thar has never been emptied, it would approximate the effect of this edict on people’s intellectual sensibilities. The idea of cultural appropriation is so utterly brain dead it makes intersectionality look almost reasonable by comparison.

      1. Your use of imagery is excellent. You make your point very well.

      2. Yes, I suppose there is some rudimentary math in adding up your oppression, which might make it less diaper filling.

  17. All this essentially frivolous activist BS makes me proud–proud that other values, like personal liberties, free markets, rule of law, and some cliches like hard work and personal sacrifice, have created a modern industrialized life that is so easy and supportive for hundreds of millions of people. And it must be easy, or these thousands (millions?) of nut jobs would be busy trying to survive (if they exsited at all).

  18. >>>This was a statement that rightly offended millions of Americans of all political stripes

    not if you heard it right.

  19. “Support for gay marriage increased from 27 percent in 1996 to 67 percent two decades later. It is now legal everywhere in the United States.

    Rico pretends that this issue was settled through political processes, rather than imposed by an unelected, nine-person superlegislature. I’m not opposed to gay marriage, but I am opposed to how its broad legality came about.

    1. I see you flunked high school civics. The Federal government can indeed impose restrictions on the states in some limited cases. Marriages conducted in one state must be recognized by all states. Rights not enumerated or specifically denied to the federal government or tot he states are left to the people. The basic rights guaranteed by the US Constitution must be recognized by the individual states. Equal protection of all rights under the law. Etc., etc.

      Gay marriage is indeed a right that the Federal government has the authority to demand that the states recognize. It doesn’t need legislation, the courts are sufficient.

      1. “It doesn’t need legislation, the courts are sufficient.”

        Now just let that stand by itself and ponder it a bit.

        1. busy reading all the stuff no high school teaches

        2. > Now just let that stand by itself and ponder it a bit.

          It’s true. The courts are one of three branches of government. Their job, outside of criminal proceedings, is to ensure that the other two branches are following the law.

          The Supreme Court rules on matters of constitutionality ALL THE TIME! That’s 90% of what they do!

          1. It is in fact, their only job.

      2. I see you flunked high school civics.….

        I don’t think so – what you said broadly agrees with what D-pizzle said, you just think it’s okay.

        Even though what you wrote undermines that stance.

        See, you wrote “Rights not enumerated or specifically denied to the federal government or to the states are left to the people.”–calling on the 9th and 10th amendments.

        But the people OF the states were already making decisions–for example, California voted to NOT make gay marriage legal. The people spoke, and pretty decisively said ‘no’. This happened in several notoriously blue states.

        And there was no overarching need for reciprocity. Because gay marriage simply wasn’t legal.

        Because there’s no ‘right to marry’ — of ANY kind, in the Constitution.

        There is a right to practice one’s faith without government infringement in there though. It’s even ENUMERATED. Because it’s the first part of the First Amendment. The first right in the Bill Of Rights.

        And the courts just pissed all over that.

        So, you see, you’re wrong.

        No matter how you feel about gay marriage, there’s no denying that it was legalized in a fucked up –and highly contestable- way.-

        1. Other people’s freedoms do not violate your first amendment rights. No one pissed all over the first amendment by legalizing gay marriage. You don’t have a first amendment right to limit OTHER PEOPLE because of your religious beliefs. Talk to the Taliban about those principles.

          1. It becomes our business when government sanctions and licenses it. The govt. should have no involvement in marriage.

            1. It should not. Has been the libertarian position for decades.

              Yet it did not turn out that way. People could not wrap their heads around the idea.

              You need a government license to get married? Yup.

              Don’t know how it is today. Back when you had to get one of those blood tests for syphillis and a form from the doctor. Then you went to the courthouse and filled out some more forms. Signed and the clerk put some official stamp on it. She hands back the stamped form. I said “so are we married now?” exasperated look over her spectacles “ No “ you are married when (looks down at the form) Rabbi Greenberg says you are married. You two can go now”.

              So that is marriage I suppose. Not sure that it makes it our business.

              1. was easiest to not get married.

        2. “Because there’s no ‘right to marry’ — of ANY kind, in the Constitution.”

          good grief. This is the lamest of authoritarian arguments and not to mention completely incorrect.

  20. God, I had a taste of this insanity over the weekend.
    Whiny Fuck #1 was bitching about the fact that a company is sponsoring the Pride event. Because COPORATE=BAD. Why, next up we’ll have Nabisco-Pride Fest, brought to you by non-gendered Flaming Cheetos. I’m so offended I flew out of my assless leather chaps!

    Of course then if no companies are fully supporting Pride, then all the OTHER whiny fucks get to claim it as proof that it’s homophobia all the way down.

    Jesus CHRIST. Either find the perfect civil utopia that you think exists out there or just hurry up and throw yourselves off a cliff.

    1. So why should gay people get a pass, from things like corporation gloming onto their cause or lifestyle, in a cynical effort to show how sympathetic and “in tune” they are [in order to boost their bottom line]?

      And don’t even get me started about marriage.

  21. Their experiences were fundamentally different from those of black men, who were privileged to the extent that they were men, and from those of white women, who were privileged to the extent that they were white.

    Yeah, the last time I was in the county jail, I noticed how much the other inmates disrespected the black lady in the prison cell next to mine.

    Wait a second, I thought each wing of the county jail was single-sex. Come to think of it, that “lady” had a very big adam’s apple …

  22. At the same time, “it’s not my job to educate you” is one of the most frequently recited catchphrases in activist circles. “It is not my responsibility as a marginalized individual to educate you about my experience,” wrote Elan Morgan in a popular Medium post, which provided 21 arguments for why that statement was correct. The feminist news website Everyday Feminism has highlighted the work of YouTuber and transgender activist Kat Blaque, who opined in a video that it is “demeaning and dehumanizing to explain to people of privilege why people like them have historically and currently oppressed people like me.” And in an article for HuffPost, the feminist writer Melanie Hamlett wrote: “Dear Men, It Is Not My Responsibility to Explain Feminism to You.” Doing so, she said, required too much “emotional labor.”

    Yep.

    1. “it’s not my job to educate you” is one of the most frequently recited catchphrases in activist circles.

      Which is really weird. Why the hell else did you become an activist?

      1. “At the same time, “it’s not my job to educate you” is one of the most frequently recited catchphrases in activist circles. “It is not my responsibility as a marginalized individual to educate you about my experience,”

        It is at this point that anyone listening to said activist should respond with, “Then fuck you, you lazy entitled fuck” and walk away. Anyone who would continue to listen to them, let alone take them seriously, after saying something at patently ridiculous as “I’m grieved, but I’m not going to explain my grievance” is an idiot. Try that shit in the working world to an employer and your ass is out of a job.

  23. The problem goes beyond intersectionalism. The problem is all the -isms that make it up. There are real problems out there, but to the progressive there is only one solution: absolute conformity of thought.

    I have a friend who is severely disabled. He’s so disabled the doctors did not think he would live past age 30. He’s now 60. He has the use of one finger. And he absolutely despises the anti-ableist movement. He finds the ADA to be an affront, and the more radical of the movement to be intellectually poisonous.

  24. the gender they were assigned at birth

    No one is “assigned a gender at birth”. It is simply observed that they are one sex or the other. In very rare cases, making that observation requires further examination.

    1. There are of course people who were born as intersex of one sort or another. Neither male nor female. I feel for their plight, but they are rare. In the past they indeed had their own special plight in life. In more recent years they had their sex assigned to them by surgery. I know such people.

      The Venn Diagram for sex versus gender is a circle. The number of intersex people is rare enough that the Venn Diagram is still essentially a circle. All this talk about sex versus gender is bullshit when you’re not talking about an actual intersex individual.

      Transsexuals are not a special case. If you have had the surgery to became another sex, then you take on that sex’s gender. Bruce Jenner was a male (sex) man (gender), and now Caitlyn Jenner is a female (sex) woman (gender). The number of legit male women or female male is so remote as to be invisible on a Venn Diagram. Yet somehow we have to bend all of society to their imagined feelz.

      1. The intersex folks are the ONLY ones in the LGBTQIA…. acronym salad whose team you cannot join or leave. Everyone else in that list is a group you can just declare you are not part of. Or declare you are no longer part of.

        I often wonder if the intersex folks are a bit nonplussed by their inclusion in that acronym salad. They really have nothing to do with the rest of the groups.

        1. ” just declare you are *now part of ”

          oops

  25. Rather than stacking, wouldn’t anti-black and anti-woman prejudice at least partly cancel each other out?

    A common stereotype about black people is that they are more likely to be violent and engage in criminal behavior, a common stereotype about women is that they are less likely to be violent and engage in criminal behavior.

    A common stereotype about black people is that they are hypersexual, a common stereotype about women is that they are prudes.

    So wouldn’t these stereotypes cancel each other out to some extent? That seems to be the case at least some of the time, I’ve seen far fewer news stories of harmless black women being shot by the police than harmless black men.

    1. Another cancelling effect would be from businesses and schools practicing affirmative action diversity in hiring and admissions. A Black woman is a twofer. A Black Muslim trans woman is a fourfer.

  26. Compared to global warming, this is an entirely too overvalued fixation for rightwing bitches. We don’t come to where you work and knock the football and vaginas out of your faces.

    1. You and self-reflection… sad.

    2. Is that the global warming that’s going to turn the Earth into Venus, killing every single lifeform in the process (including single-cell life in rocks 3,000 meters below the surface), but only if we don’t believe in science hard enough?

    3. Incidentally, Comrade, you have been issued 10 demerits for using the term “global warming” instead of “climate change”. You should know better — “global warming” prevents us from blaming blizzards and such on capitalism.

      Your presence and participation will be expected at the next Party struggle session.

      1. You have the internet, so presumably you have google. I’m tired of willful ignorance with you assholes.

        1. You’ve never read a peer-reviewed paper in your life, have you? You get your daily science belief training in small, NPR-predigested doses, and you freely make shit up to give voice to your inchoate fears. And yet, when called on it, you accuse us Reasonoids — a lot of whom have advanced science or engineering degrees (including myself) of ignorance.

          I have never met anyone who was so lacking in self-awareness as you. You’re the NPC archetype.

          1. So give me the gist of your opinion on climate change.

            1. “Climate change” happens/is happening, as it has since the planet was a ball of molten rock/metal. “Anthropogenic climate change” may or may not be happening. I’ve seen *no* convincing evidence, and the people who seem to be jumping about screaming “the science is settled” are those relying on faulty/non-published data and computer models, those with something to gain by shutting down dissent (e.g., advocates for government control of the economy, uneducated/uninformed “thought leaders” such as the comedian Bill Nye and random worthless celebrities) and those who’ve bet their careers on their predictions (Michael Mann et al.), all the while failing (100% of the time!) to produce predictions that subsequent match real-world data.

              Please know: science is *never* settled. To me, seeing a supposed scientist saying otherwise, and advocating for blacklisting those who dissent (as is now routinely done in scientific journals), is telling. As is the constant tweaking of computer models, random “adjustments” made to raw data, and the flat out refusal to provide the computer code/data that’s being used to justify calls for a complete transformation of this country’s economy (one which will drastically reduce the standard of living of my children, while allowing the largest polluting countries to continue unchecked). These are the actions of apparatchiks, not scientists who can be trusted.

              So yeah, that’s why your “Earth will become Venus” thing pissed me off. You’re clearly worried about what others have told you is a big problem, but you haven’t been given any real education as to whether and why it’s actually a problem.

  27. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from NOT USING THE DAMN CROSSWALK sex discrimination or race discrimination.

  28. I uniquely experience oppression based on standing at the intersection of race and gender.

    I can relate with my oppressed sister on this one. One time, I was just standing on a corner, in Winslow, Arizona. A woman, in a flatbed Ford, no less, slowed down and looked me over like a piece of meat.

    1. Such a fine sight to see.
      Speaking of intersections, ever been to Dyckman and Cummings?

    2. Interection.

      One of the people I have always admired was Sammy Davis Jr.

      His life story is amazing. He was a black man in a time of terrible racial oppression. He had to enter the Vegas hotels to perform by back doors in the early days. Drove himself from gig to gig. After a traffic accident his friend Joey Bishop was talking with him. Having no religious upbringing he decided Judaism. He married a white woman May Britt in a Jewish ceremony.

      He faced triple hatred and at times could not leave his hotel room without police escort.

      True story. In our smallish Midwest city the Jewish school needed a building. My father somehow contacted him. He agreed to come and do a benefit concert at no cost except for the band and crew. The school was built.

      I got to shake his hand and meet him. He always stayed after the show to meet with people. What a mensch.

      z”l

      What I see now from these complaints and inter whatevers. You all have no idea what battles were fought and the cost to achieve freedom.

      Sammy Davis Jr. Mr. Bojangles.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fju4UajL7g

  29. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??.

    VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.Employment10.com

    1. Yet you still struggle with spelling.

  30. In short; ‘intersectionality’ is the Progressive Left’s latest bullshit buzzword intended to protect their agenda (which is incoherent, counterproductive, and stupid) from any form of criticism whatsoever.

    I’m sick of these ninnies. I’ve BEEN sick of them for a long time. They won’t engage in legitimate debate, they want me to kowtow to them, their history is a moral cesspool, and they’re tiresome.

    They want to run things. They have scant demonstrable talent for doing so, and their methodology of choice (Statism, under the Socialist brand) has been extensively tried, and does not work.

    *sigh*

    At least I can take sour comfort from the near certainty that, should they succeed, they will be liquidated by whatever Stalin rises to power.

    1. I was going to say that this is what the Politburo would look like if the Lubyanka didn’t have a basement.

    2. moral cesspool

      Their actual history is a moral cesspool and their revisionist history is even worse.

  31. […] excerpt from Chapter One of my book is available here, and in the July 2019 issue of […]

  32. equality=tyranny motherfucker.

  33. Tower of Babel, anyone?

  34. Berbicara mengenai daftar judi poker online resmi terpercaya 2019 maka website pilihan yang sangat tepat untuk kalian semua yakni begabung di situspoker.online. Situspoker.online merupakan website judi penyedia daftar poker online terpercaya, Domino QQ, Capsa Susun, Ceme, Ceme Keliling, Super ten (10) , dan omaha dalm 1 Username/Akun.

  35. I am making a good salary online from home.I­’­v­e m­a­d­e $­97,­999 s­o f­o­r last 5 months w­or­k­i­n­g on­l­i­n­e a­n­d I­’­m a f­u­l­l t­i­m­e s­t­u­d­e­n­t­. I­’­m u­s­i­n­g a­n on­l­i­n­e b­u­s­i­n­e­s­s o­p­p­o­r­t­u­n­i­t­y I h­e­a­r­d a­b­o­u­t a­n­d I­’­v­e m­a­d­e s­u­c­h g­r­e­a­t m­o­n­e­y­.I am genuinely thankful to and my administrator, I­t­’s’ r­e­a­l­l­y u­s­e­r f­r­i­e­n­d­l­y a­n­d I­’­m j­u­s­t s­o h­a­p­p­y t­h­a­t I f­o­u­n­d o­u­t a­b­o­u­t i­t , …… payhd.com

  36. What these intersectional marionettes fail to realize is what gay activists recognized early on, and not just in regard to same sex marriage, as Soave points out, but also in the fight for AIDS awareness and activism. Unlike, say, Black Lives Matter activists, who jump ugly anytime someone suggests that All Lives Matter or *gasp* Blue Lives Matter, AIDS activists, early on, argued that the threat of HIV and AIDS extended far beyond the gay male community, and threatened all Americans, gay and straight, black and white, young and old. While this was certainly true to a degree, they exaggerated the threat to non-gays in an effort to make the medical community and Washington D.C. take AIDS education and research and funding seriously. They did this to mostly successful effect and in astonishingly short order. By making a problem seem more universal than it might otherwise appear, they succeeded in ways the intersectionality activists, who claim victimhood for increasingly smaller and more rarefied groups, will never do, as they only succeed in alienating the vast majority of Americans, who remain, for better or worse, straight and white and cis-gendered.

  37. “One must also support their tactics, know their language intuitively, defer to the wisdom of the oppressed without either speaking on their behalf or expecting them to speak for themselves, and commit to every other interrelated cause.”

    So there’s a complicated set of ever-changing rules used as loyalty tests? Sounds like cult .

  38. Cisgender, the opposite of transgender, describes people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth.

    You mean, with their biological sex. Or is biology now a social construct with no objective reality. (If so, the creationists will be pleased.)

  39. I remember when my daughter in law asked me what she should call me … handicapped, disabled or what. I replied that I didn’t really care. She could call me a cripple if she wanted. The word doesn’t change what I am and I have no reason to think she’d be trying to insult me with whatever she used. She just looked totally puzzled.

    1. Maybe be looked puzzled because she wanted to know whether she should call you “Mom” or “Diane.”

  40. Intersectionality is simply a deconstruction of binary opposition. A narrative of men vs. women can get complicated because race intersects with gender. Black women may face additional obstacles not presented to white women, especially in a racist society.

    This is where the liberal understanding of the intersectionality ends. But it goes beyond that. For example, a black woman can discriminate against a Jewish man owing to antisemitism or xenophobia. An immigrant suffering in an intolerant society could very well assert his old world hierarchy on his own family. It’s actually common with Asian immigrants.

    Intersectionally is just basically “everyone on our side can be victims of racism” for liberals. They already established the role of the oppressor and victim and will not deviate from it. That’s why they remained silent when antisemites at OWS ran their mouth.

  41. That’s interesting. I think it is a good idea.

  42. The bottom line is this:

    Normal, not fuck ups have been bullied into pretending to be overly nice to freaks, losers, weirdos, and the generally inferior… And it needs to end.

    Almost all these people are just blow it cases who have nothing better to do than bitch. The superior people in society need to just bludgeon these losers back into their place by telling them to STFU.

    No longer humoring them is the only way these people will ever shut the fuck up.

    You’re a woman and can’t compete with men and don’t like it? Too bad honey, men are objectively superior at lots of things than women, deal with it.

    You’re gay? Cool story bro, don’t care, but quit whining when people call you a pansy… Because you are one.

    Black, and don’t like people “discriminating” against you and stereotyping you? Maybe learn how to speak English correctly, get a job, and stop dressing like an idiot and people will treat you with respect… Like they already do for black people who act like adults.

    All their arguments are BS. Almost all of the “failures” these people supposedly suffer due to oppression come down to either personal failures, or inherent differences that are based in reality and can never be changed. No more humoring these people out of politeness people!

  43. Intersectionality sounds like a cult designed to make Scientology look sane and reasonable.

Comments are closed.