Hacker News Reader

Comment by yjp20 | Hacker News Reader

That's a pretty severe mischaracterization of intersectionality in general. Intersectionality refers to the fact that you can't analyze human experiences as linear terms (being black, being a woman) and that you must consider the effects of being some combination of categories. As an example, intersectionality claims that being both black and a woman brings separate challenges than the additive combination of being black and being a woman.

That's all there is to intersectionality, any conclusions you make beyond that are your interpretation of intersectionality, not the general consensus of the "far left".

View on HN

>That's all there is to intersectionality

That's really not "all there is" to intersectionality. You are repeating the motte-and-bailey of far-left ideologues wherein you fall back on the official/original definition of the term, conveniently ignoring that its meaning has changed over time, and has been coopted.

To be clear: I'm being charitable in my interpretation, and assuming you are not intentionally doing this.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-intersectionality/ clarifies how the notion of intersectionality is generally interpreted in a Foucaldian way by most people who engage with it. This "interpretation" is not just parent post's but widespread enough to call it a consensus.

You're going to quote James Lindsay, the guy who refers to critical theory as 'race marxism'? This source is so biased Ma'at's feather never had a chance.

Lindsay is an academic and his arguments are out there for you to rebut if you wish. Attacking his character doesn't dismiss his ideas even though the left wishes as much.

It appears many do not know the actual definition of ad hominem. The definition of the term is out there to be looked up.

Don’t play coy. Intersectionality is a framework for dismantling the status quo. From wikipedia:

> Crenshaw used intersectionality to display the disadvantages caused by intersecting systems creating structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against minorities in the workplace and society.[15] Crenshaw explained the dynamics that using gender, race, and other forms of power in politics and academics plays a big role in intersectionality.

It’s not just the idea that multiple identities can be at play at once. It’s a tool in the postmodern toolbox.

Nobody even needed intersectionality to explain the idea that humans can’t be reduced to a single identity (that’s just common sense) until 3rd wave feminists convinced us as much in the first place.

Is there any evidence that common sense is either common or sensical?

Lots of businesses have a front of the house (customer-facing roles) and a back of the house (warehouse, etc.). In the South, many businesses only hired white people in the front of the house, and only hired men in the back. You argue that it's "just common sense," but it was widely accepted that these practices were neither neither racist nor sexist because the business does hire some women (in the front) and some black guys (in the back). But if you were a black woman, you were shit out of luck.

It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.

> It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.

It really didn't. I was raised in conservative evangelicalism and was never exposed to "intersectional" thought, but it was obvious to me that someone in multiple disadvantaged categories had it worse than someone who was only in one of them.

It was also obvious to me that any hiring system which a priori debarred a given category of people at the start was discriminatory.

Intersectional thought undoubtedly has helped some people figure these things out, but it really isn't necessary to understand these problematic behaviors and situations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com