Intersectionality is the latest favored buzzword of the sufficiently woke. The idea is based on the notion that each individual’s life is impacted by multiple factors, most of which are beyond the individual’s ability to control. Race, national origin, sex, and gender are all factors but so are more dynamic traits such as religious belief, education level, and economic status.
The term is often used to express one’s likelihood of being systemically marginalized due the cumulative effects of the marginalization related to each trait.
Thanks to a tool “using log-exponential multivariable analysis”, anyone can have their intersectionality score calculated online. Just use the 13 helpful sliders to identify your personal traits, and your personal intersectionality score shows up right there at the top of the page.
So if you’ve ever suspected that you might be experiencing systemic oppression – now you can know for sure, and to what extent!
The truth is that this tool is simply a means for individuals wishing to identify as societal victims to quantify and assign culpability for that victimization. While that in itself isn’t a huge problem – the victim-minded will always find an oppressor to blame, fancy Internet sliders or not – the greater issues lie in the measures used for that quantification, and several proposed means for utilizing it.
Some observations about the values resulting from the measures used:
Being Muslim increases your score about the same as being transgender, while being Jewish bumps it up only slightly. Christian? Sorry, you’re going to lose a couple points for that. Doesn’t matter that you’re constantly being told you’re ignorant and a bigot; you’re among the oppressors.
Being a woman adds more than being gay, and being transgender adds even less. Being a straight cisgender (ie, not at all confused) male will cost you substantially. Because, you know, you’re the absolute worst of all.
A score of only 18.5 out of 100 will place you in the median. In other words, half of all people would be considered pretty strongly privileged, while the other half would be considered pretty badly oppressed.
Now for the really interesting observations – the proposed means for getting the most out of your intersectionality:
“Primarily, it can be used to help those who are historically marginalized.” Okay, that seems mostly innocuous. Relatively speaking, anyway. If you don’t believe me, keep reading.
“Some people even advocate giving more opportunties [sic] and promotions to people with high intersectionality scores so that they become more represented in positions of power.” So basically we have a tool for promoting affirmative action?
[Reader Rule of Thumb: phrases like “Some people even advocate …”, are a lazy writer’s way of making “I think we should …” sound more credible and less biased.]
- “In politics, we could use these scores to compensate for previous social injustice by weighing votes in proportional [sic] to ones [sic*] intersectional score …” Wait, surely they’re not advocating for a political system wherein individual votes are weighed differently. “ … For example, someone with an intersectional score of 60 would get twice as many votes as someone with a score of 30.” Well I’ll be damned, that’s exactly what they’re advocating.
[* – Seriously, do these people not proofread? Oh, wait, is my grammatical privilege showing? Deduct two points from my score.]
If you can’t almost smell the hypocrisy wafting through the Internet and toward your nose, try engaging your brain a little more. The creators of this intersectionality-quantifying tool propose to address oppression with … come on, you can do this … that’s right, oppression.
See, oppression is a bad thing. But it’s okay to use oppression if it helps further your agenda. Provided it’s the right agenda.
It’s okay to award greater political power to an individual based on that individual’s chosen gender – but only if they’ve chosen to ignore the reality of their genetic identity.
It’s okay to promote someone based on the color of their skin – provided that person belongs to a group traditionally oppressed for its skin color. Unless that person is also a masculine-acting male who happens to believe that Jesus died for his sins and makes more than $100,000 a year. That person needs to go to the back of the line. Or should I say bus?
Were one to take this concept to its logical conclusion, then some time around 2022 we should start seeing stickers in business windows identifying them as “Intersectionally approved!” and by 2030, we’ll have signs outside public restrooms denoting use for the “Sufficiently intersectional” and “Not sufficiently intersectional”.
But hey, as long as those restrooms are equal, it’s okay if they’re separate, right?