Jeremy Stangroom

Put simply, it inevitably results in multiple layers of inclusion & exclusion between different groups based on inviolable categories.

Take, eg, how the idea of being an "ally" is highly conditional in left discourse. It has rigid boundaries that are very carefully policed.

Trouble is, a successful political movement needs to emphasize what binds people together, not what separates them (e.g., the sisterhood).

If political categories become highly atomized, you have no basis upon which to build a successful movement. You don't have enough people.

Intersectionality creates a hierarchy of oppression - even if that's not its intention - that emphasizes difference. It's not going to work.

You need to emphasize the commonality in your oppression (so, for example, 2nd wave feminism treats gender as a class). If you don't, well

you might build a large social media following, but it's going to be much more difficult to gain political power, and if you get it,

you're going to find yourself caught in a maelstrom of competing interests without a coherent theoretical/practical framework to guide you.

The point about Gramsci is that he emphasized the need to incorporate disparate interests within a single overarching political vision.

Okay, I've bored myself now, and no doubt everybody else, so I'm going to shut up.

Surely very difficult to solve problems specific to people's identities without placing attention firmly on those identities?

Not if specific problems have common causes - e.g., lack of education; toxic socialization; poverty; media effects; etc.