3 ms·

The Paradox of the Black Feminist Panda: Godel and Intersectionality

• CultState 12y ago
  Let theories be a set of theorems. Let a theorem be a set of proofs that predict and detect oppression. Let intersectionality imply inversions (!) to be: - The intersections (∩) of the complement (c) of a theory with its overlapping theories and non-overlapping theories. - The absolute complement of an theory and all non-overlapping theories. Let intersectionality deny complements of a theory as a complete theory. Let intersectionality treat all intersecting theories as new theories. Let A, C, D be overlapping theories, thus: Let D = B ∩ C Let E = C ∩ A Let F = A ∩ B Thus, inversions can be defined as: !A = (A ∩ B)c ∩ C !B = (B ∩ C)c ∩ A !C = (C ∩ A)c ∩ B Thus: !A = D !B = E !C = F But: (A ∩ B)c ∩ C = B ∩ C (B ∩ C)c ∩ A = C ∩ A (C ∩ A)c ∩ B = A ∩ B This is logically false since B ∩ C contains not just (A ∩ B)c ∩ C, but also A ∩ B ∩ C. Intersectionality's implications of inversion, then, is false. To further demonstrate the point, let X be a different theory of oppression that has no intersecting theorems. Thus: Ø = X ∩ A Ø = X ∩ B Ø = X ∩ C Ø = X ∩ D Ø = X ∩ E Ø = X ∩ F Thus: X ∉ B ∩ C X ∉ C ∩ A X ∉ A ∩ B However, due to the second rule of inversion, X is part of all inversions. Thus: !A = D Ø = X ∩ D Ø = X ∩ (B ∩ C) But: !A = (A ∩ B)c ∩ C Ø = X ∩ !A Ø = X ∩ (A ∩ B)c ∩ C Is a false statement.