Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

#Sociology of gender shows how societies categorise ideas of femininity, masculinity and other genders differently. This varies across time & place. That's the social construction element. However, this theory has not traditionally dealt well with intersections of inequity

Theory of 'doing gender' illustrates the everyday ways in which we create gender. It's in bodily practices, from how people dress, to attitudes in the (perceived) differences in how 'girls' play sport vs 'boys.' Again, this is important, but this theory misses structural issues

Some #sociology studies focus on the loss or gain of gender 'privilege' when transgender people transition, ignoring that this is untrue or uneven for different transgender people (e.g. lack of safety prior to transition; or Black transgender women's experiences different to WW)

Why #intersectionality is important: while #sociology of gender shows that gender structures can be undone (i.e. the inequalities that flow from how gender is organised), looking to transgender people as emblematic of how to do this is problematic in many ways. See my article

Back to the transphobic article in question: this White feminist uses phrase like 'trans ideology' to describe critiques of TERFs. Analyses of race and gender are 'pro-trans, pro-sex-work, anti-White Feminism' and therefore ''Tumblerised #intersectionality,' 'dogma' & 'catechism'

The author, Jane Clare Jones, argues: 'intersectional feminism* functions to displace women’s oppression from the centre of feminism.' 'Women' here is centring *White cisgender* women as the rightful beneficiaries of feminism (*Incorrect term. #Intersectionality is the theory)

Jones then argues: '#Intersectionality is used to bolster and reinforce trans activism’s efforts to undermine woman as a political category.' This is confused on many levels. Intersectionality is theory of how race + gender + other institutional disadvantages are compounded

To Jones, whose 'feminism' operates through whiteness (that is, White race is taken as the universal norm with institutional benefits that go unexamined), the critical race focus of #intersectionality is erased. Instead, it is just a tool for what she calls 'trans activism'

Next, Jones argues: 'there is something utterly (neo)liberal about both intersectionality and trans activism.' Bigots now use 'liberal' as a shorthand for 'I don't like social inclusion.' She argues #intersectionality is about 'individuals' not structural inequality. That's false

Jones mentions 'Crenshaw' by last name but doesn't link to Prof Crenshaw's work. Like many critics of #intersectionality, Jones hasn't read the original, or she would see quite clearly it is expressly about structural inquality (industrial law case study) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf …

Crenshaw argues: ''Black women are sometimes excluded from feminist theory & antiracist policy discourse because both are predicated on a discrete set of experiences that does not accurately reflect the interaction of race & gender.' Many miss this point about #intersectionality

I could go on, but sufficed to say that lumping #intersectionality and TERF slurs of 'trans activism' miss the point. Transgender people have different race, gender, class & other experiences of inequity. Intersectionality is a theory that shines a light on these dynamics

Finally, Jones twice uses a word she clearly does not understand, 'ahistorical,' to describe #intersectionality. She argues 'feminism' has always dealt with race, 'which is not to say we’re good at it, we’re often really not.' It's critical who the 'we' is here: White women