I don't agree. The article indicates that intersectionalism is a valid idea, i.e. that we must consider that 'black women' for example will faces systematic ch

I don't agree. The article indicates that intersectionalism is a valid idea, i.e. that we must consider that 'black women' for example will faces systematic challenges that others do not. However - when intersectionalism becomes the only policy tool, then we're led astray. The example given is that 50% of letters to editors published in the NYT will be women, even though 75% of the letters written are by men. The totalitarian intersectionalists need to see equal outcomes, which gets ... well, very ridiculous, very quickly: the NYT is only one policy inch away from mandating that 'published letters' must not only be 50/50 men/women - but also 15% Black, 18% Latino, 65% White, 5% Asian. And also 8% Gay and 92% straight. 10 years ago it would have been absurd to even suggest that NYT letters must be 50/50. Not even 'far left' types I think would be in support of the idea.