It's possible that I've expressed myself poorly and some misunderstandings have arisen because of this. For this reason, here's a last attempt to explain myself (I can only talk for myself, not anyone else) here and if people are still confused, I'm happy to embrace my lack of lucidity and bow out.
Walter, I'm sure you'll agree that you and and I have some 'history' on this board when it comes to discussing gender, feminist, race, class, ID politics issues. We have crossed paths on these issues, over a couple of years.
I posted many links during 2016 and 2017 to articles on all these subjects, including on intersectionality theory, because these issues were widely discussed during South Africa's countrywide Fees Must Fall protests and political upheavals.
I explained at the time that I found intersectional theory to be something one needed to know about because the liberal-left media was starting to refer to it much more, in limited, selective fashion. I posted articles explaining the concept and some posters here seemed interested and some useful group discussions (both pro and anti) ensued. Others ignored/avoided the posts or delivered flak.
I refer to this, because I feel, Walter, that you sometimes appear to infer that I do not understand and/or reject all intersectional and identity theory and am merely a "class warrior" (sic).
You wrote: "I see no discussion or critique of intersectionality nor any indication it's understood by any of its assailants."
I feel that's an unfair description, given the context of my archived articles dating back over two years which showed that I (and others) did discuss and critique the theory.
That's why I asked you, Walter, to refrain from using that snippy "class warrior" label, which I take as ad hom. You didn't acknowledge my request and appeared to double down, accusing me of "doing" and "promoting" some unnamed, presumably nefarious stuff, somehow linked with "war" between "activists". For the record: I take exception to the inferences.
I asked for clear explanation but haven't received it: I'm still confused as to what I'm supposedly "doing" and "promoting" when I link to articles (in the public domain) which broaden/ deepen or fail to address this subject which arises on the LBN board, from time to time.
When I posted a link to Fisher's piece, I did so because I presume this board is a place where people are open to discussing a broad range of ideas not carried by media, a place of free speech. RhisG didn't like it, and said so, no ad hom. But when you didn't like it (and you're absolutely free to hate it), Walter, you immediately headlined your posts with 'no substance', 'terrible' and then progressed, in short order, to applying a 'class warrior' label to the post.
One of the strongest proposals put forward by identity and intersectional theorists is that people should respect each other's opinions and people's particular 'lived experiences'. The suggestion is that people should 'speak for themselves' and refer to their own life experiences and not presume to speak for others.
I don't know what it's like to live in Canada, UK or Australia. I only know what it's like to live in southern Africa (where I've lived under apartheid, through regime change and through its 23 years of post-apartheid reality) so this is my experience and reference point and it no doubt 'colours' my p.o.v. This p.o.v may come across as different to that of someone immersed in the global north, it might jar or appear 'unknowable' to those who've never visited Africa (in general) or South Africa (in particular). But this p.o.v (for better or worse) arises out of my own lived experience here: reject it, hate it, enjoy it, ignore it. About a year ago, Walter, I was offended when you didn't seem to want to hear anything I said when I tried to share what I was hearing from the women around me - in the streets and at lectures held at one of the country's leading universities - during South Africa's 2016/17 socio-political upheavals. It felt like you did not value or want to know about my 'lived experience' and just wanted to shut me down on the subject. You got very annoyed with me, as I remember. As you've reminded me again in this thread, you even went so far as to specifically ask me then to never address or interact with you again.
------
South Africans discussed identity and issues of intersectionality when we wrote our new constitution in 1994. Thus, South Africa become the first country in Africa (if not the world) to recognise legal gay marriage in the early 90s. The 90s Gender Equality Bill saw to it that South Africa has one of the highest number of female parliamentarians in the world. The S. African B.E.E. and affirmative action bills directly speak to intersectional theory in that black, disabled and non-gender conforming women are top of the employment and empowerment programs and white cis-gendered males are lowest on the list when it comes to university entrance, etcetera, etcetera.
Do black women in South Africa say that this intersectional awareness and sensitivity to racial and gender identity has improved their lives? Walter and WV, I'd be interested to read your answers to this question?
In any event, this is just a discussion on a board and I'm grateful to have the chance to test my own thoughts and beliefs here ... and listen and learn from others' responses. No hard feelings. Here's to 2019.