re: #240 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

It’s not a new word, but why did anyone think that this academic term has any relevance to what Arquette said? I’ve seen people willfully misinterpret her words, e.g. that her mentioning “women” and “gay people” individually meant that by women she only meant straight women - even though her “or” logical operator was obviously inclusive (think Venn diagrams), not exclusive. Logic 101 fail.

I’m not sure how that is a logic fail. Here is the direct quote:

It’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for — to fight for us now!

She set up distinct groups: women, men that love women, gay people, people of color. Inclusive language in that context would be along the lines of ‘Everyone in America, no matter your race, gender identity, or sexual orientation…’. I agree that in a Venn diagram those groups intersect. That is actually the point of her critics.

Also, I disagree that it is an academic term in the sense that it is only useful in an academic context. The whole point of making that term commonplace is so that it draws more people into these issues. Intersectionality means that everyone should care about the rights of everyone else, which I assume is one of the planks of the progressive movement.

I just think it fascinating that this whole argument started over nuance in language, but then some fairly prominent people got real ugly (full disclosure: I don’t think Elon James White is one of the people who got ugly).