-
systemic disadvantages don't exist and interact. For example this article on the unique challenges that black men face in the US. To reject a truth-seeking framework because it's divisive or whatever is anti-intellectual. 2/2https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html …
Trouble is, most such analyses of 'systemic disadvantages' aren't genetically sensitive (e.g. aren't twin, adoption, or GWAS studies), and can't actually identify environmental effects....
-
-
regardless of that - of that the point is that there could be a dynamic that black young men face that black women and white men don't face at a level society considers worth worrying about. Hence a possible need for the intersection it would seem.
-
Now if there is a accepted benefit - the counter argument now needs intersectionality to cause enough confusion (or whatever) to outweigh that benefit rather than just that it is not 100% right (as Uri already accepted it can be taken too far)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's fair. But not sure how much it matters in many policy analyses. The 3 that were mentioned: 1) lack of access to AIDS treatment for POC gay and transpeople; 2) downwards mobility for BM compared to both BW and WM; 3) under-representation at GM for BW relative to BM and WW.
-
Those are good examples of when intersections make a difference. but as it is being used, it a wide blanket of gender+sex+race on their own. it’s a low resolution, generalization of an actual multivariate approach.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.