Thread by @JoshuaSealy

I’m over this brand of intersectionality “critique” that fails to engage with #CRT while claiming to dunk on it.

So, a 🧵 responding to @jordanbpeterson’s latest @nationalpost piece.

TL;DR: He rejects intersectionality by denying hierarchy’s existence.

nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan…

Let’s start with defining intersectionality. Coined by @sandylocks 30 years ago, intersectionality challenges a “single-axis framework” in feminist and anti-racist discourse by recognizing the “particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.” chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewconten…

In other words, intersectionality is, actually, quite a modest proposition. It simply observes that individuals in “multiply-burdened” groups experience the world differently from their “otherwise-privileged” peers—that, as a Black man, my experiences differ from a Black woman’s.

This is what many conservatives are rallying against—recognizing that *different* communities experience the world *differently*, and that this should be accounted for in our politics. It’s actually preposterous that such a basic proposition receives such adamant resistance.

So what does Peterson have to say about intersectionality? Nothing new—A repackaging of tired conservative talking points, none of which meaningfully engage with critical race theory, and many of which are based on a flawed premise: that identity-based hierarchy does not exist.

That Peterson rejects identity-based hierarchy is not even remotely concealed. When he sarcastically refers to progressive “beliefs” such as “the idea that we live in an oppressive patriarchy” he is explicitly challenging the existence of sexism in society, full stop.

For example, per Peterson, it is “obvious to everyone” at McGill, Harvard, and U of T that promotions are exclusively merit-based. But I guarantee that not “everyone” at these schools agrees with Peterson. And I doubt sexism, or racism, happen to skip university administrations.

Peterson even expands beyond universities, and claims bigotry “was actually solved long ago by the Western emphasis on the individual.” Just the opposite: Emphasizing *individuals* obscures *systemic* disadvantage; conversely, systemic monitoring reveals individuals’ treatment.

But let’s turn to his argument. First, Peterson criticizes diversity—which he repeatedly “scare quotes” (we get it, you hate diversity)—by joining the chorus of conservatives who oppose diversity based on merit. In his view, pro-diversity measures are, necessarily, anti-merit.

Yet, Peterson’s critique isn’t limited to quotas—he even resists data collection, which can’t be anti-merit; to the contrary, it’s a safeguard for merit. Data collection can reveal when a “meritorious” process consistently selects dominant groups, a red flag for prejudice.

Fundamentally, Peterson’s position exalts *process* without vetting *outcomes*. He effectively says, ‘trust the process, no matter how skewed the results.’ But when covert attitudes favour particular groups, scrutiny is warranted. And diversity monitoring enables such scrutiny.

Indeed, the only disadvantage Peterson is willing to acknowledge—with painfully unintended irony—is the plight of “white men” (an intersectional group) & women’s supposed “hiring advantage” in STEM (said to be proven by the identity-based monitoring Peterson otherwise detests).

If extant systems reflect merit, monitoring identity outcomes should pose no concern. Either different groups will perform in line with their relative population, or deviations will have an alternate explanation. Without monitoring, these deviations are immunized from scrutiny.

Second, Peterson criticizes diversity because it’s “slippery” (as if “merit”—his ideological commitment—is any less slippery). Regardless, hierarchy is slippery. Flexible concepts are required to meet identity-based hierarchy (eg sexism & racism) in its amorphous battleground.

Third, Peterson praises the one form of diversity many conservatives are willing to value: diversity of thought. He says that organizations should strive for ideological diversity to ally their conservative and liberal tendencies. This concession defeats the rest of his argument.

Let me explain. The only direct critique of intersectionality—as opposed to diversity—that Peterson makes is “arithmetic”, i.e., that there “appears to be no limits ... to the number of group memberships that have to be taken into account for true diversity to establish itself.”

Peterson repeatedly does arithmetic in his op-ed to “prove” that, if we consider intersectional diversity, then we must consider 15,000,000 groups. The only thing that’s slippery here is not “diversity”, but the slope Peterson’s argument careens off of to oppose that diversity.

Recall that Peterson is perfectly comfortable with diversity of *thought*, just not diversity of *identity*. Yet thought is just as (if not more) capacious than identity. He says “healthy organizations” balance “liberal” and “conservative” ideology, as if only 2 ideologies exist.

Peterson’s argument, thus, eats itself. Thought diverges along myriad issues: social, economic, political, philosophical.

2 X 2 X 2 X 2, etc.

To consider thought diversity implicates so many distinct subjects that it becomes unworkable. Shouldn’t we defer to merit, instead?

Or, should we exercise a modicum of judgment, & make modest efforts at considering how various diversities (thought, identity, etc.) safeguard true merit? Sure, considering *every* conceivable diversity can be unworkable, but that hardly disproves considering diversity *at all*.

Fundamentally, Peterson’s anti-intersectional position is motivated by selective defeatism. Diversity of thought (which protects his conservative politics) is simple enough to account for, but diversity of identity (which challenges his white male privilege) is too complex.

And, of course, what would an anti-diversity op-ed be without a hyperbolic reference to “war and genocide.” According to Peterson, considering identity outcomes in supposedly merit-based systems feeds the logic mass killings. But this superman-esque leap of logic is absurd.

Recognizing that certain groups suffer particular disadvantage will not result in genocide. To the contrary, such recognition acknowledges how state-sanctioned violence against those groups has morphed into “objective” criteria that continue to contribute to their subordination.

Peterson’s critique of intersectionality is, at its core, a denial of hierarchy.

Rather, sexism subordinates women; racism subordinates Black people; and intersectionality includes those at the crossroads—Black women—in our politics.

Dismissing intersectionality erases them.