Preserving this exchange and making it publicly available for the edification of those in need of it is appreciated.

That said, snark ahead.

Ya’ll chose a headline that belies the active application of intersectionality ostensibly advocated: “often invisible” to whom? Name what needs naming so what needs seeing can be seen: “often invisible to those who permit their privilege to obscure their vision”; “often invisible to white/het/cis/bougie/able-bodied women”; “often invisible to those who’ve opted out of meaningful engagement with social justice issues, but are all about aggressively displaying superficial trophies that pretend to said meaningful engagement”; “often invisible to the lovely as in ’ain’t nothin’ wrong with society if it don’t affect me, and I feel l-l-l-lovely’”*; et cetera.

Or possibly a headline that gets a smidge closer to reality: "How Patricia Arquette’s Words Spark Another in the Seemingly Infinite Line of Conversations about the Divide in Feminism That’s Been around Since before White Ladies Tried to Trade Black Women’s Suffrage for White Men’s Votes in which White Women Reach New Heights of Self-Pitying Narcissism and New Depths of Racist “Ally” Fail?

*Robert Trujillo, Clark Muir – 1990 – Suicidal Tendencies, Lights … Camera .. Revolution!

This was a super long, super enlightening, super frustrating read. Lol. Thank you. I’m all caught up now on the background for this new disagreement.

Thank you for doing this work. I had not heard the term intersectionality until all of this blew up. If nothing else, it taught me something and I’m sure I’m not alone.