Focusing on any one part of a persons identity is, in a way, a disavowal of all the other parts. It is the fragmentation of the individual in favor of identity.
This is why the concept of intersectionality was conceived; in order to knit back together the fractured persona of the individual which has been shattered into hundreds of shards. Its really not complicated. Of course the concept of intersectionality was and is used only in the interests of victimization of the individuals’ multiple facets in order to blame others along multiple outward points of dispersion.
Reread what Ryder wrote in this paragraph:
Instead of being a strong woman, or an adventurous woman, or a caring woman, or all of the above… identity politics said instead: You’re a feminist. Here is what you believe. Here is how you vote. Here is what you stand for. Also, you are now a member of many… and you are powerful.
How is it that what he wrote isn’t understood? Identity, no matter how inseparable each of them might be from the individual, is merely a portion of the person. Each time an identity is made known as a defining characteristic, the totality of, or if you’d like wholeness, the individual is compromised. Because it’s not only your wants, needs, desires but rather your race or creed or gender. Your voice becomes homogenized. It must therefore conform or it becomes ostracized. And marginalized.
Do you understand yet?