I think intersectionality as a theory and idea is useful, but it has its limits and has also been largely misunderstood in the way it has been adapted in neoliberal thinking/online spaces and also within the context of the epistemological dominance of racism white supremacy + capitalism. Also the way categories (gender/race/class) are 'measured up' is not always nuanced or evidence based and often comes from some vague understanding based on individual experiences (hence the individualisation of group categories). For example, Black men in America as a group are a good starting point to critique both the theory and the misunderstanding of intersectionality. Black men in America experience worse incarceration and policy brutality rates, higher unemployment, and in health worse life expectancy, infant health outcomes, age- and cause-specific morbidity and mortality, insurance coverage, and access to adequate health care, the list goes on. But often in the world of populist neoliberalism, it is believed that Black men magically evade these outcomes because they are men or that they have male privilege. How do people come to this conclusion? Because the overarching power structure of capitalism white supremacy is not properly considered AND the fallacy of viewing intersectionality through (white) feminism leads people to believe that Black men must be privileged because they are men first and not Black first. However countless Black scholars and history will show you that they are Black first, and in the context of white supremacy - white men being at the top - male=threat, Black=threat. People who claim to be using 'intersectionality' are really just lumping people into categories without thinking what those categories mean. I think in the end it has led to more divisiveness because in stacking these categories it has made more categories!