In academic papers, protest chants, and social media captions alike, one word has become central to the language of social justice: intersectionality. But like many terms that go viral, its original meaning often gets flattened. To understand its depth, we need to go back to its origins—specifically, to the work of legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw.
Crenshaw introduced the concept of intersectionality in two landmark essays in 1989 and 1991. Writing from a legal standpoint, she argued that the framework of anti-discrimination law, much like dominant feminist and anti-racist discourse, often failed to account for people who sit at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. Her foundational example? Black women.
Legal Roots: The DeGraffenreid Case
Crenshaw illustrates her argument with a 1976 case, DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, where five Black women sued GM for discrimination. The court rejected their claim, asserting that there was no specific category of “Black women” under the law—only "Black" or "women," separately. GM argued that since it hired Black men and white women, it could not be discriminatory.
The legal system, in this logic, could only address discrimination one axis at a time. The unique experience of Black women—who faced exclusion not just as women, and not just as Black people, but as both—was made invisible. Crenshaw’s intervention was to name this erasure, and to offer a new framework for seeing how systems of power interlock.
What Is Intersectionality, Really?
At its core, intersectionality is not just about identity—it’s about structures. It examines how race, gender, class, sexuality, disability, and other axes of identity intersect to shape experiences of oppression or privilege. It rejects the idea that any one aspect of identity is primary. Instead, it shows how different forces compound and complicate each other.
Importantly, Crenshaw never meant intersectionality as a buzzword. It was a critique of institutional blindness. Today, it remains a powerful analytic tool—one that has extended far beyond the courtroom.
Movements in Motion: #MeToo and Black Lives Matter
Take #MeToo. The mainstream media often framed it as a women’s movement led by white actresses. But its originator, Tarana Burke, created it as a space for Black and brown girls to speak out about sexual violence. Intersectionality helps explain why survivors of color face different barriers to justice—legal, cultural, and economic—than their white counterparts.
Or consider Black Lives Matter. Co-founded by three Black women—two of them queer—BLM has from the start insisted on an intersectional vision of justice. It’s not just about race, but about how race intersects with gender identity, sexuality, class, and geography. That intersectional grounding is what allows BLM to challenge police brutality while also advocating for trans rights, housing, and reproductive justice.
Intersectionality and Us
In a world that often demands simplicity, intersectionality insists on complexity. It doesn’t let us reduce someone to a single category or explain injustice with a single cause. It calls us to see the full picture—even when it’s uncomfortable, even when it resists easy solutions.
When we ignore intersectionality, we risk designing policies, movements, or conversations that leave the most vulnerable behind. But when we use it with care, it becomes a lens that clarifies rather than blurs. Crenshaw’s theory reminds us: justice must account for the whole person, not just the part that fits our framework.
See also: What is Intersectionality and How it Screws You Over
