That's really not "all there is" to intersectionality. You are repeating the motte-and-bailey of far-left ideologues wherein you fall back on the official/original definition of the term, conveniently ignoring that its meaning has changed over time, and has been coopted.
To be clear: I'm being charitable in my interpretation, and assuming you are not intentionally doing this.
> Crenshaw used intersectionality to display the disadvantages caused by intersecting systems creating structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against minorities in the workplace and society.[15] Crenshaw explained the dynamics that using gender, race, and other forms of power in politics and academics plays a big role in intersectionality.
It’s not just the idea that multiple identities can be at play at once. It’s a tool in the postmodern toolbox.
Nobody even needed intersectionality to explain the idea that humans can’t be reduced to a single identity (that’s just common sense) until 3rd wave feminists convinced us as much in the first place.
It might be obvious now, but it took intersectional thought for people to begin to acknowledge these less overt forms of discrimination.
It really didn't. I was raised in conservative evangelicalism and was never exposed to "intersectional" thought, but it was obvious to me that someone in multiple disadvantaged categories had it worse than someone who was only in one of them.
It was also obvious to me that any hiring system which a priori debarred a given category of people at the start was discriminatory.
Intersectional thought undoubtedly has helped some people figure these things out, but it really isn't necessary to understand these problematic behaviors and situations.
That's all there is to intersectionality, any conclusions you make beyond that are your interpretation of intersectionality, not the general consensus of the "far left".