yes, it got an A

an op-ed i wrote during my first undergrad degree, on why intersectionality needs to be at the centre of philosophical discourse

the need for feminism emerged directly from the implementation and maintenance of patriarchal systems. since its emergence, feminist discourse has infiltrated academia – producing an abundance of feminist scholars who have endeavoured to apply feminist themes to a wide range of philosophical topics – like epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, and science, to name a few. too often, feminism, philosophy of race, and other studies of identity are not only seen as distinct from all other areas of philosophical discourse, but as distinct from one another. how can we possibly be getting a comprehensive picture of philosophy when the voices that dominate the field are representative of only the thoughts, experiences, and perspectives of white men? why do we learn about feminist epistemology in feminism classes, but not in epistemology classes?

there are four distinct waves of feminism, the first two of which have been heavily (and rightfully) critiqued for being exclusively in the interest of and applicable to white women, and the fourth of which is active and ongoing. intersectionality is a term that was popularized by Black feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw during the third wave, in her ongoing attempt to name and explain the unique harm that comes to people who are marginalized by more than one system of oppression. initially, she used this term primarily to refer to the intersection of racial and gender marginalization, however it is an all-encompassing word, that can be used to describe more than just two types, or systems of oppression.

each person has a unique conception of what feminism is, and what it means to be a feminist. more primitive definitions of feminism rely heavily on sexual biology, and are primarily focused on establishing women’s fundamental rights, and shedding light on visible and tangible social inequalities between sexes, like the pay gap. this is based on a very basic and binary conception of gender, that more or less conceives of women as anyone assigned female at birth, and men as anyone assigned male at birth. most contemporary feminists, however, recognize the existence of gender diversity, and have amended their definitions of feminism in order to reflect the more complex and nuanced issues that need to be addressed, and to accurately represent the multidimensional group of people who are oppressed under patriarchy – namely cisgender women, transgender women, and non-binary/two-spirit/gender non-conforming people – particularly those who were assigned female at birth (AFAB), and socialized as women. the root of all gender-based violence that the aforementioned groups of people endure is misogyny, which, in essence, claims that femininity is inherently inferior to masculinity, and perpetuates a cycle of harm done primarily by cisgender, heterosexual men, at the expense of anyone perceived as being in proximity to femininity.

as is the case within all social institutions, there are systemic barriers which disproportionately hinder racialized women’s (and allow white women’s) access to academia and academic spaces – meaning that the philosophy of feminism that has been developed for so many years is, at the very least, incomplete – if not entirely misrepresentative. there are also a plethora of social factors that have significantly impacted the level of safety afforded to queer people in society, much less in academia, causing queer voices to be extremely underrepresented. this type of underrepresentation can (and should) be more accurately described as systemic erasure. the need for diverse (more specifically racialized, trans, and sapphic) perspectives in feminist discourse is pressing. while the combination of cisgenderism and heterosexuality does not undermine a person’s experience of womanhood, i find the notion that cisgendered women who centre men in the most socially relevant way –romantically– should be awarded the same amount of authority in feminist discourse as sapphics and trans people, challenging to accept.

the person with the least dimensional identity cannot serve to represent the interests of the person with several intersecting identities – but the opposite is not true, meaning that the person with the most intersectional identity can effectively represent the interests of the person who suffers under just one structure of oppression. it is generally accepted that a group is only as strong as its weakest member, so why, then, do Black men seem to have the most influence within racial discourse, white women within feminist discourse, and white men within queer discourse?

the introduction of intersectionality to feminist discourse has radically shifted and advanced conversations about and conceptions of feminism. how much has been missed in other disciplines of philosophy due to the erasure of intersectional voices? not only does intersectionality need to be at the centre of feminism and feminist philosophy, but intersectional feminist perspectives need to be at the centre of all philosophical discourse. whether you’re a thinker, writer, student, teacher, all of the above, or something in between – consider this a call to action.

(did u know i have a philosophy degree? this is a paper i wrote during my second year, for a class called philosophy of feminism. yes, it got an A.)