The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things.
What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless
Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate.
So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same.
Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?
You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse.
If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality.
To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.
What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless