Helen Pluckrose (a British woman who has a keen insight of the problem with feminism, follow her twitter account) has written
a very good article on Areo Magazine on the issues with intersectionality.
This quote is especially good:
Helen Pluckrose wrote:The idea that if one is not an intersectional feminist, one is a misogynist, White supremacist, homophobic, transphobic ableist demands an utter ideological purity that few people can meet or wish to meet. Instead, centrists, moderates and universal liberals of all genders, races, sexualities and abilities continue to oppose discrimination, promote equality and value diversity, independent of intersectionality.
Another great quote by Tom Owolade, a British liberal blogger:
Tom Owolade wrote:“(B)rown people, believe it or not, can be progressives, conservatives, liberals and fascists. The beliefs of black and brown people do not derive from their identity like a linear well. They are human, and as human should be free to believe whatever they want without accusations of treachery. It carries with it the pernicious idea – which I thought was long buried – that individuals shouldn’t be individuals but effectively stereotypes.”
Yup. Intersectionality, with its focus on "oppressed groups", reduces individuals to their group. Intersectionality is actually racism, sexism, sexual orientation bigotry, etc., just like garden-variety racism, sexism, sex orientation bigotry, etc. only with a different scale of groups which are valued as perpetual victims (the "oppressed groups") but whose members are robbed of their individuality and agency, while criticism of bad behavior and bad ideas is stifled if those ideas are considered to be characteristics of the group or simple a reaction to oppression.
Muslim and ex-Muslim liberals encounter the same external restrictions when attempting to critique any aspect of their own religion or culture. When criticising any illiberal aspect of doctrine or culture, including sexism, homophobia, intolerance of apostates or theocratic ideas affecting them or others, they are likely to be labelled “Uncle Toms” “House-Arabs” or “native informants.” Again, the implication is that they are pandering to White non-Muslims and could not possibly have their own views on their own culture or the same moral right to discuss them as White westerners do.
Oh so much. And this is one of the reasons why traditional, reactionary "community leaders" and "thought leaders" are able to take control of the narrative, cast themselves as "moderate" only because they claim to be peaceful and opposed to terrorism (with a dubious degree of reliability) and sneak in their demands for religiously inspired laws and standards as "promotion of cultural differences".
Debate about the flaws of islam is stifled, not only by the left, but also by center-right people like David Cameron or Angela Merkel, in a clumsy attempt to pander to "community leaders" and "thought leaders" who should instead be treated as reactionary bigots.
People like Linda Sarsour or Reza Aslan or Mo Ansar or even Rula Jebreal are one of the biggest obstacles to changes within the muslim communities in the west, because the defend reactionary islam as "moderate", allegedly (and who knows, in some cases, like Jebreal's, even sincerely, even thought I doubt it in the case of people like Sarsour, who openly praise Saudi Arabia) in order to oppose bigotry but in reality allowing for the immunity of islam from rational criticism.
