The Metaphysics of Intersectionality Revisited*.

Our conclusion is that it is false that feminism had better be intersectional I instead of i single-axis focused; and at best true that feminism had better I also i be intersectional (in addition to its single-axis focus). It is common for critics of single-axis feminism to conflate "single-axis" with "white feminism", as for example Nora Berenstain does when she says 'White feminism takes only a single-axis approach to gender-based oppression', describing it as a feminism that applies only to 'white, nondisabled, class-privileged, straight, cisgender citizens of "Western" colonial and settler colonial nation-states' while it "masquerades as universal". If black women experience some discrimination on the basis of I only i sex, similar to some white women, then black women, too, have an interest in "non-intersectional" feminism, a form of feminism concerned with sex alone. We certainly don't want to be arguing for the transformation of feminism into the familiar caricature of second-wave feminism. So this couldn't yet make sense of the claim that feminism had better be intersectional, only the weaker claim that feminism had better be intersectional I too i (as well as in addition to). [Extracted from the article]