> "50% black trans women speakers"? Bingo, this seems the natural end (or just the beginning of absurdity, really) of emphasizing equal representation of inter

> "50% black trans women speakers"? Bingo, this seems the natural end (or just the beginning of absurdity, really) of emphasizing equal representation of intersectionality, and it doesn't seem productive, dignified, or fair. Can anyone show that this is distorting the article's point? I don't see why transexuality should be minimized more than race or gender, and why it's not a component of intersectionality. Or defend why it's actually a good idea to turn people into a tuple of (gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, sex, sex at time of birth, religion, caste, language) and select uniformly (or oppression-intersectionally)? How are you even going to find all those things out? (In some cases, asking would be a legal liability, and doesn't seem the most appropriate thing to ask.) I'd rather wear down barriers where I see them and let diversity organically grow, than to constantly be categorizing people and fudging the numbers into something artificially diverse.