[bitwize]

> What a weird take on things: let's apply neat little discrete labels to every person and pretend that the experiences of each particular combination of labels is so radically different from everybody else's that we can't possibly learn anything from anybody else.

This is called "intersectionality", a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the late 1980s but some of the key concepts date back to the work of bell hooks in the 1970s. It's a generally accepted pillar of modern feminism.

Something bubbled up on StalkedIn a couple days back: it had images of King Charles III and Ozzy Osbourne, and it said both were white, male, British, born in 1948, married twice, and on and so forth. And it said "A customer is not their demographics. A customer is their individual goals and needs" or something like that. Which, while still laden with business-speak, was something of a contrarian take in today's DEI-mediated world. You gotta be careful with this intersectionality stuff. The endgame of intersectionality is -- gasp -- considering people as individuals.

[david-gpu]

There is some nuance here. As I understand it, intersectionality simply highlights that the experiences of a collective built from the intersection of several traits can be quite different to the experience of an adjacent collective. E.g. the queer descendants of Asian immigrants may often share experiences that are quite distinct from those of queer black folks.

I have no problem with that. My point of contention is whether or not it is okay to shush a person talking about a collective simply because they aren't members of it. Or more broadly, whether it is okay to dismiss, silence and minimize the struggles of a collective because of some twisted notion that they deserve it.

Why is it that we all agree that an old "boys' club" is repugnant, a "whites-only" association is disgustingly racist, but a "girls-only" lessons or a "black only" show are things to celebrate? We demand diversity and inclusivity, but somehow the more "able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" checkboxes you tick, the less we care about your opinion and well-being, and thus the less important it is to include you. (And I only tick two of those)

[littlelady]

> We demand diversity and inclusivity, but somehow the more "able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" checkboxes you tick, the less your opinion and well-being matters. (And I only tick two of those)

Let's look at this more from a structural view: "Able-bodied neurotypical white heterosexual male" is the assumed default in "Western" society. What do I mean by that? White neurotypical heterosexual men built society for others in their demographic. Rights for women, POC, LGBTQIA people, neurodivergent, and disabled people, etc. have always been secondary.

On a systemic level, I do not agree with you that WNTHSM (I'm not writing that out again) are less valued than other groups. Let's just look at healthcare. Men make up the majority of participants in medical studies[1], black patients are perceived as more able to cope with pain[2]. Let's look at the law: Women could not open bank accounts without their husbands' permission in the US until 1974 under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Insurance will often cover viagra, but not birth control. Look up anything about redlining and read about how black people couldn't get fair loans to buy homes.

We all have to navigate systems in life: educational, judicial, healthcare, financial systems, etc... I would guess you don't face as much/the same adversity navigating as someone belonging to zero of the five mentioned demographics, likewise it's harder for you than for those belonging to 5/5 demographics. How can you make a system work for more people? By involving them when redesigning the system.

I won't deny your feelings, but would ask you to consider specifically when you've felt your opinions and well-being do not matter.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812498/

[2]: https://www.aamc.org/news/how-we-fail-black-patients-pain

[david-gpu]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'll try to make it justice.

Let me start at the end.

> I won't deny your feelings, but would ask you to consider specifically when you've felt your opinions and well-being do not matter

First of all, every time I hear the word "mansplaining" -- and while the author of the linked article didn't use it verbatim, she was effectively complaining about it with more words. "Mansplaining" reads as the most superficial dismissal of somebody's opinion, as it instantly disregards a person's whole argument based on a birth trait. It's not any more noble or justified than brushing aside somebody's opinion as being done by a "hysterical woman", a term that is thankfully relegated to the past.

But it goes well beyond that, so let me illustrate with a couple of examples. A few weeks ago there was an event where an attorney would share some insights into the local cycling laws and what to do in the event of a crash. I wanted to attend, but was denied because the event was part of a women's cycling month initiative. It was a webinar, for goodness' sake.

Another example: people online have criticized me for attending a Japanese festival with my family. Apparently being a white father of two Japanese children is some sort of a sin and my presence in the festival is some form of "cultural appropriation". I jokingly asked what percentage of Japanese ancestry is required to attend, and whether or not my hypothetical 25% Japanese grandchildren would be allowed to attend or not. It goes without saying, the people criticizing this family event were... drum-roll please... not Japanese.

I need to run to take care of my kids now, but let me make a quick observation: I have felt far more social discrimination for being male than I have ever received for being queer, disabled, or an immigrant. And it's not just that being male means you are explicitly forbidden from some groups/activities, it's also that the same people that act deeply indignant at other forms of racism and sexism quickly turn into gatekeepers that openly and proudly discriminate against men.

[littlelady]

A lot of my thoughts are dependent on geographical location, culture, etc.

> "Mansplaining" reads as the most superficial dismissal of somebody's opinion, as it instantly disregards a person's whole argument based on a birth trait. It's not any more noble or justified than brushing aside somebody's opinion as being done by a "hysterical woman", a term that is thankfully relegated to the past.

Mansplaining is less about "birth traits" and more about socialization. A lot of women experience it. That being said, I'm sure people misuse it as a killerphrase. Side note: the "hysterical woman" idea is prevalent where I live. This may be one of the reasons that women's pain is often neglected or not taken seriously by clinical staff[1].

> people online have criticized me for attending a Japanese festival with my family.

Whoever said that is being overzealous: cultural appreciation is not the same as appropriation, plus cultural festivals are usually about sharing cultures. But on your part, it's online. Why let that into your life?

> I have felt far more social discrimination for being male than I have ever received for being queer, disabled, or an immigrant. And it's not just that being male means you are explicitly forbidden from some groups/activities, it's also that the same people that act deeply indignant at other forms of racism and sexism quickly turn into gatekeepers that openly and proudly discriminate against men.

I'm sorry you've experienced that. I can understand "women's only" activities, e.g. yoga classes or career events. TBH, my local yoga studio also offers a men's only course. In my experience women's only activities/group are about helping women gain their confidence, esp. when they are a minority in a larger group. Perhaps those were the motivations behind the women's cycling webinar?

Analogously, I think groups for men working in jobs typically associated with women, e.g. child-care are also important.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/interactive/2022/wom...

[AnimalMuppet]

> the queer descendants of Asian immigrants may often share experiences that are quite distinct from those of queer black folks.

OK, but keep going. The queer descendants of Asian immigrants may often have experiences that are quite different from those of other queer descendants of Asian immigrants, too.

So you can make some generalizations and find some patterns, but those generalizations and patterns can turn into stereotypes if we aren't very careful.

As bitwise said in the GP, people are individuals. They share some subset of the experiences of the various groups of which they are members. Those experiences shape them in ways that have some similarities with the characteristics of the groups as a whole, and also have some differences. For anything that you think is a characteristic or a shared experience of an intersectional group, you can find members who do not share that.

[david-gpu]

> So you can make some generalizations and find some patterns, but those generalizations and patterns can turn into stereotypes if we aren't very careful

The key is that these are self-organizing groups that look for other people who have similar experiences to them. Stereotypes are forced upon people by outsiders. It's an entirely different group dynamic.

> For anything that you think is a characteristic or a shared experience of an intersectional group, you can find members who do not share that

Obviously, which is why it is particularly important that the context is within-group. Gay black men sharing their experience among themselves are in no danger of forgetting that they are individuals with unique traits, all while they seek the camraderie of people like themselves.

[roenxi]

> Why is it that...

If you go with ye old class analysis, you'll notice the big threat to the status of VHNW is a free and fair free market. They benefit a lot from regulation and handouts to preserve the status quo.

If you look at what plays out in practice, the rational move for the ultra-wealthy is to quietly align with the poor against the middle class. It isn't too blatant, but quietly just make it harder for people to jump up orders of magnitude in wealth.

The intersectionality as pushed in the public debate is probably emanating from people looking to create a divided political climate to make it harder for poor and middle to unite and look for political change. I don't think most people want to institutionalise anti-white racism. Indeed, I suspect a "white's only" association wouldn't disgust many people, on the basis that we can have black or girl-only associations and they are fine. It would still be racist, obviously. But people have

[david-gpu]

> I suspect a "white's only" association wouldn't disgust many people, on the basis that we can have black or girl-only associations and they are fine. It would still be racist, obviously

Well, it would disgust me. I have so-called mixed-heritage children and I dread the day when I have to explain to them that they can't join this or that activity with their friends because they have the wrong skin color or the wrong gender.

I may be in the minority, but I find associations that exclude people based on any of the protected classes (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) very distasteful. By all means, feel free to organize an event centered around X community, but allow everybody to attend.

[roenxi]

As long as you are consistent and are disgusted by all race based organisations equally then cool. But, realistically, there are race based associations. Quite a lot of them. You're going to have to tolerate them - although I agree they are counterproductive.

And I don't see why a white-only association would be unusual in the current climate. In the US in particular, whites are well on the way to being just one more minority in a vibrant society.

[d-z-m]

> And I don't see why a white-only association would be unusual in the current climate.

I think it would be very unusual. I'm curious to know why you think otherwise. I also think it would be career and social suicide to be associated with said organization.

[roenxi]

Picking on Harvard because I know a few people who went there and it is a decent signpost of what direction the US political elite are going in...

If I go look up Black students at Harvard, I can find a Black student association association: https://www.theharvardbsa.com/. The photos might not be completely representative of their membership but they are quite suggestive of a certain racial trend among the associates.

Ditto the Harvard Latino alliance - https://harvardlatino.sigs.harvard.edu/ - just eyeballing the photos but I it looks like this association is race biased too.

I don't see why Whites are supposed to be all that different. I would suggest that in the future there will be a Harvard White Student association. Not immediately, but I'd say in a 30-50 year time horizon it'd be much more likely that not.

[subjectsigma]

> And I don't see why a white-only association would be unusual in the current climate.

Are you white? I am, and I don’t think any white person would claim this. At least where I live and work, we get reminded weekly how much a small contingent of ultra-progressives hate us.

[hnbad]

> The endgame of intersectionality is -- gasp -- considering people as individuals.

I'm not sure I read your tone correctly but this is indeed what authors like bell hooks try to get at: being Black is one thing, being a woman is another and being a Black woman can be different from either of those things in isolation; ultimately our experiences are defined not by each attribute individually but the way they interact in combination. Any subset of attributes will always give you an incomplete understanding but they can still be useful lenses.

Charles and Ozzy do have a lot of things in common and they do have many shared experiences because of them and do experience many things similarly because of them. Of course those things are not all there is to them and e.g. being born into the royal family may significantly outweigh most of the attributes they have in common for many such experiences.

Modern feminist critique is intersectional because it recognizes these complexities and recognizes the limitations. But feminist critique explicitly challenges the systems underlying our society. Girlboss pop feminism did the opposite, an infamously inane example argument being that then-state secretary Hillary Clinton is underprivileged compared to a homeless man because she's a woman. Corporate DEI is a step up from this but still falls flat because its ability to critique systems is limited by being beholden to the corporate structures that allow for it to exist: it's essentially the "more female drone pilots" joke but without a hint of irony.

Again, that does not mean DEI can't do good things (e.g. being mindful of inclusivity can reduce artificial or cultural barriers to entry and increase representation) but it can't solve systemic issues because it can't meaningfully challenge the systems it exists within. This is what led to the tensions resulting in stunts like those at Basecamp or Coinbase where the owners of the respective companies decided to expel DEI and claim to create a "politics-free" workplace because the people involved in their DEI projects refused to stay in the comfortable confines of feel-good corporate (literal) virtue signalling and got dangerously close to critiquing the structures around them.

You need to consider people as individuals but if you want to make sense of systems you need to pick subsets (plural!) of the attributes that define each individual. Where DEI falls short is that it usually by design is only allowed to pick a limited number of attributes and is even more limited in what systems it is allowed to look at. Wheelchair-accessible workspaces, yes. Racism towards Black employees by their peers, yes. Sexual misconduct by middle managers, yes. But anything that challenges the leadership or ownership structure of the company is too close to unionization for comfort.