How do you feel about identity politics?

Q: Hi! I just wanted to say thank you for talking about gender and sexism and all the social issues you do. It is so important to talk about these things within spirituality, and you give me the courage to be more of myself. : ) I have a few questions to add to all of this. A video on the Daily Wire (no idea why it showed up on my feed lol) shows a man with a mic asking a woman why we can define what a cat is, but why we can’t define what a woman is. She was unprepared and didn’t have an answer. What would yours be out of curiosity? Next, how do you feel about identity politics just in general? Also, you say you are nonbinary which is so cool because I am too!! Was there anything that initially prompted you to question your identity or did you realize you were nonbinary early on? Thank you! Even though you are honest about Sedona’s spiritual challenges, you make it sound so appealing and I want to come visit soon.

A: Wow, you have such great questions! All of you do… I am so glad we can have these discussions, and it makes my heart so happy that you feel inspired to be your authentic self! Nothing makes me more blissful. =) <3

First question: I think I know the video you are talking about. The man who poses the question seems to be conflating the idea of taxonomic classification with gender identity and orientation. It is a false equivalency and is a question that makes little sense in the first place. The first idea (how we define a cat) is a biological identifier based on physical/biological characteristics, DNA sequencing, and inbreeding abilities. The second is a much more nebulous and personally fluid concept that is based on how a person feels inside or identifies. Gender identity is a perception of self. He asks if the woman can tell him what a cat is… And then goes on to ask why we can’t all agree on what a woman is. “Cat” is a colloquial term in many cases, so it does depend on how it is used. Does he mean housecat (domesticated Felis catus)? Does he mean the family of cats which includes lions, leopards, cheetahs, tigers, AND housecats-- identified as Felidae? Animals that have the most DNA sequences in common and have the ability to inbreed together and produce offspring will be classified as the same species if that is what he meant by his question. Before this conversation turns into a whole science lesson, I’ll simplify this by saying that we can identify “cats” (once we know what he means by “cat”) because Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species can be assessed scientifically. That’s the entire point of systemics and taxonomic nomenclature. If he had asked how we define or assess whether an organism is human, or what the scientific name for our current species is, that would have been more congruent with his logic. Sex can also be assessed as AMAB, AFAB, or AIAB based on genitalia, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones (That one is pretty wobbly. Ex: Some women (AFAB people) have such high testosterone levels, that in situations where they have been tested to see if they could compete in women’s sports, they were told that they had too much testosterone to compete in that category.), and/or secondary sex characteristics someone possesses, though sex does not automatically indicate someone’s gender identity by any means. We can see which chromosomes, phenotype, hormone levels, genitals, and gonads someone has, but those do not automatically indicate anything about their identity. Sex is also a spectrum that is broadly bimodally distributed. I also do not want to be too reductive with my AFAB/AMAB/AIAB labels, because many people find out that they are intersex long after birth. What you are assigned at birth does not automatically indicate where you fall on the "sex spectrum.” It simply explains how people (doctors/parents/caregivers) perceived you. Sex itself is highly nuanced and cannot be reduced into clear-cut categories all the time.

Gender, on the other hand, cannot be assessed this way… if at all. There may be certain proclivities that predispose a person toward an orientation (the body can and does inform gender, but does not exist to validate identities intrinsically or all the time), but I think that interpretation is far too reductive and too unexplored to settle on all by itself. It would be fair to consider that environment could be part of shaping gender identities, but I am not sure how we would even begin to assess that, especially since many different people exposed to the same environment can be very different from each other. I think the problem is that some people feel threatened by the seeming explosion of gender identities because they feel it is an attack on their values or that it somehow insults or erases their own identity since we don’t have rigid definitions for everything. We don’t have rigid definitions for gender because gender is not supposed to be a rigid, scientifically defined structure. (Even sex is not an objective biological fact!) Gender is self-defined. Gender identities outside the binary and nonbinary people are not new to the earth/human scene, but we do have many more resources and, yes, labels to help people thrive and find a name for themselves than we once did. The labels aren’t meant to separate people. They are supposed to help people feel at home in their bodies and connect with resources that give them a chance at having the best experience they can while on planet earth. We cannot all define what a woman is, because we do not all hold the same ideas, values, aesthetic ideals/associations, physical/emotional/mental criteria, or social expectations for what a woman should be. I think that is so beautiful though. We are all free to define womanhood for ourselves. Of course, we will get the misogynistic and problematic definitions from some, but the good news is that the rest of us do not have to subscribe to those definitions or give them credence. Gender is an exploration of the self… It is an expansive and creative adventure to discover one’s identity (which can shift and change over time!), find fulfillment in oneself and a supportive community, and do what Star Trek often failed to do as it recycled old plot lines: Discover the new frontier. Instead of outer space, the frontier and architecture we are discovering and creating are within the Self. This journey is not new, but when we are exploring ourselves, it can feel that way. That is thrilling to me and is one of the most freeing experiences I have undertaken to date, even as I consider my parallel incarnations on other worlds. =) (And I have no hate for Star Trek as a whole. It has its issues, but I’m still a Trekkie haha.)

[Inserting this a few weeks after this question was asked: I like to present as much information as possible when I talk about massive topics like gender and identity, so I would be remiss if I did not mention that even some people within the LGBTQIA+ community do not feel that the “gender is what you feel like on the inside” rhetoric is the best definition for gender. For example, some trans people have voiced that they did not feel like they were truly a woman until they transitioned (at least in some way) physically. (Even if it was just clothing or hair or something like makeup—and I don’t mean “just” to put it down. Gender-affirming changes are very important and valid. I am just referring to the idea that changing one’s hair is simpler in mechanical terms than undergoing trans surgeries.) I would still argue that these people are saying that their identities are feelings based (or based on their perception of self), but require more physical affirmations for their identities than, say, I would- This is totally valid. For me, gender and gender expression are completely different things. So, as I told one of my trans friends, even though she (when I first met her) was not physically transitioning in any way due to her home situation, I saw her as a woman with no question as to whether she really was conventionally “woman-appearing” or not. She says she really appreciates that about me, but that she, PERSONALLY, whether through social grooming or perhaps through something natural inside of her, did not feel like a woman (fully) until she transitioned somewhat. Other people say they did not feel like the gender they currently identify as until they made external changes. I personally do not feel that external changes should be necessary for someone to be ACCEPTED as the gender they identify as because that plays into privilege, personal safety issues (if the person lives in a place that isn’t safe at all for trans people or lives with people who get violent toward trans or LGBTQIA+ people) and a host of other intersections. However, it is not up to me to decide what someone else’s experience with gender is or to say that because someone else’s experience with gender is different from mine, it must be wrong. If someone else’s body more deeply informs their gender identity than mine does, then that is awesome. For me, I feel it is more inclusive to talk about gender in terms of something more internal (maybe not all, but mostly) because it is slightly less dependent on privilege and ability, but for other people, gender and gender expression are much more closely linked. I think that is perfectly alright as long as these people are accepting of others who do not have that deeper linkage. I also cannot deny the fact that gender, sex, and the body all inform each other on some level. We see this when studying the history of gender, and it is fascinating to learn how so many things interrelate.

For my part, gender is fairly arbitrary in terms of my experience with it. I AM really happy I found a label that validates me, but thanks to my perception of parallel-past- lives I have had, I recall living in societies that did not politicize gender and just accepted however people felt. I guess some of that carried over for me. So, if someone uses a different pronoun for me other than what I use for myself, I personally do not care or feel insulted. However, for others who have gone through intensive surgeries, more extreme bullying than what I have experienced with gender, or major gender dysphoria, it is deeply offensive and dismissive of everything they have done to affirm their gender. That needs to be brought more to the forefront of our consciousness so that our trans/nonbinary family is heard as often as the rest of us. (I also do not want to imply that the desire for one’s preferred pronouns is trauma-based. I am only reflecting one perspective here as it has been told to me by others in my LGBTQIA+ community.) I don’t think the differences automatically mean that any of us are wrong, but that there is a lot of nuance and diversity within gender experiences that need to be heard and respected. And to be clear, my trans friend completely respects my internal experience with gender identity and I completely respect her internal-external experience with gender. Gender can be bodily and/or socially expressed. I wanted to share this to give some validation to another perspective and experience and to be clear on the fact that even people in the LGBTQIA+ community do not all have the exact same journey with gender.  =)]

Also, there is some “evidence” for gender, which has been very affirming for many members of the trans community. For example, someone who is AFAB and who is a trans man can get a brain scan done. In these individuals, genitalia and/or chromosomes (etc.) may be categorized as AFAB people, but their brain scans will often look like the structural brain scans of AMAB people. The same is true of AMAB people who identify as trans women. This does not mean that someone assigned AFAB with a “male brain” will identify as a man or as trans at all. (And remember, what we call male and female are not objective, biological facts.) My point is that social constructs and biology can have an influence on who someone is, but we cannot look at those things alone to determine someone’s identity. We have to talk to them to get the information. I think that the confessional “I” is a valid form of scientific information gathering as I discuss on my goth website, so in that sense, we can scientifically accept someone’s answer regarding who they are the same way we would accept answers for a survey. All I am saying is that we cannot just look at someone’s body or brain scan and know for absolute certain who they are. Needles, scopes, and scans are not law when it comes to identity. They aren’t even law when it comes to sex. Hormones and a variety of other things can fluctuate throughout one’s lifetime. There needs to be communication. Biology and social constructs don’t have the final say on identity- people do.

I also need to be very careful here and state that gender does not need a “biological” basis to be valid or real. All I am saying here is that I am happy that some research has validated some people’s identities. (This research also needs to be retested and studied much more than it has been.) Many anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ campaigners appropriate this modality to understand one’s gender identity to suggest that being a man or woman is determined by bodily characteristics. This is unacceptable and untrue. The body can and does serve to inform identity in many cases, but does not serve as an essentialist platform for identity.

Furthermore, intersex characteristics (as we perceive them) do not exist primarily to validate trans or nonbinary identities. Intersex advocacy and activism itself needs to be included within the realms of trans activism as its own entity, history, and experience.

In the book Before We Were Trans: A New History of Gender, Dr. Kit Heyam states, “We must also be aware that the idea of sexual dimorphism also has a racist history, formulated in eighteenth- and nineteenth- century European thought as a pseudoscientific basis for white supremacy… We can see the origins of this in exoticised early modern accounts of the sexual difference of people of colour… While the body has an impact on how we understand gender and sex, then, how we interpret the body is- and always has been - a complicated, political, culturally specific process.” They go on to say (later in the chapter): “More widely, the contemporary transphobic practice of policing human bodies on the basis of sex- especially the focus on genitals as indicating someone’s ‘real’ sex- has a racist history too, originating in fears that Black women, lesbians and sex workers were all ‘hiding’ their ‘inferior or abnormal anatomic features in order to hide their deeper criminal natures’.” These are some things you can explore further if you are interested. I highly recommend the aforementioned book.

To your second question about identity politics… It all kind of flows with what I was just saying. I’m not going to be academic about this. I just want to be candid and share my thoughts as you asked. I am a little confused with the common definition of identity politics: “Politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.” So, with that definition, wouldn’t fundamentalists be catering more to identity politics than, say, intersectional feminists who do consider as many other groups as possible…? Yet, intersectional feminists are more likely to be called snowflakes…? Is this a commentary on something like ethnocentrism vs. cultural relativism? In the Jonathan Haidt line of thinking are there “good” and “bad” identity politics as he suggests? I think part of the issue is that many of us can define the phenomena differently, which probably just adds to communication gaps. In Sedona, identity politics is primarily considered a “bad” or “less evolved” thing and is usually ascribed to more liberal people, but I would venture to say that individual definitions within our community still vary.

 I realize that identity politics is open to criticism just like anything, but overall, I am glad we are at least having big public conversations. I wish gender identity and sexual orientation were not constantly being politicized in that we are being told that we can’t be who we are, but I hope eventually the right(s) to have our identities protected (and not discriminated against) and have full control over our bodies will be codified and signed into law at the very least. I am oversimplifying things here and I understand that we could come at identity politics from many angles, so it would depend on what we are exploring or criticizing. What I assume you’re curious about is whether I support the idea of identity politics and public discourse about all the “isms” attributed to some brands of “wokeism.” The answer to that is yes. (P.S. The people using the word “woke” to criticize others are appropriating the original meaning of “woke” from AAE, which isn’t nice in the first place. Woke originally meant being “sensitized to issues of justice.” In other words, it is supposed to mean: “Aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice.” The point is, “woke” should not have been appropriated and used incorrectly in the first place, nor should it have ever become an insult.)

The people who so often make fun of identity politics are those whose identities have never been threatened, or at least they haven’t been on a massive political scale, even if they have been on a personal one. The very people who call us snowflakes for being excited about discovering we are nonbinary or femmes, just as a couple of examples, are the very first to vehemently correct people who misidentify them or question their identities! No hate to those people either—Identity is very important, and it is okay to be clear about who you are (Hopefully it isn’t rooted in toxic thinking such as: It’s bad to seem or be gay.). It’s interesting though because in Sedona we have plenty of people in the spiritual community who dismiss gender identities and say that identity politics is causing division (they aren’t always clear about which aspect is causing the divide though). I want to state clearly that it is not devolved to be concerned with or passionate about identity. Identity is incredibly important and dismissing it is just another form of spiritual bypassing. Secondly, these same people (the group I’m thinking about in my head) are the exact ones who will turn bright red or almost start crying if they are misidentified or if someone questions whether they are attracted to anyone other than the “opposite” sex (the concept of opposites being a strange idea in the first place). The truth is that identity is VERY important to these people, but they often subscribe to the belief that anything outside the binary is part of the Luciferian agenda (Satanic panic is still real, folks.), and they often exhibit low empathy for people they don’t experience attraction to. According to the quoted definition of identity politics above, wouldn’t that mean that they are most deeply involved in identity politics, even if it is internalized…?   

I am using big blanket statements here, so keep in mind that this does not apply to everyone, but they “fit” based on my observations of and engagement with my own community. I think when it comes down to it, most of us can agree that identity is important. Hell hath no fury like a cishet man who has his sexuality or gender orientation questioned lol. The conflict comes when we start discussing gender identities that are outside the binary, or when we talk about identities or orientations that have experienced oppression and abuse at higher rates. Talking about how a group has been systemically oppressed shouldn’t be seen as a problem. The oppression should be the problem we want to resolve. (Also, it makes no sense to call people who are systemically oppressed snowflakes, when they stand to experience much higher rates of abuse while being expected to live functional lives within late-stage capitalism. Wouldn’t trans people be some of the strongest beings in society given all they are up against? Just a thought.)

Skipping along, I disagree in general with one of the big overarching criticisms of identity politics: It causes division. I am not saying it never causes division, but my disagreement with using that logic to dismiss it is based on my identification of the biggest cultural problem and the fact that the statement is a little too general. Identity is what is being ripped apart, but homophobia, intolerance, and sexism are the real issues. To be clear, I am defining identity politics here as the act/experience of regularly discussing issues and challenges that face marginalized groups right now- not necessarily the quoted definition above. In Sedona, simply talking about genders outside the binary can be seen as “identity politics,” so I am speaking to that school of thought. With identity politics aligning more closely with my definition, I would say that identity politics may highlight division but is not the root cause overall. To people with *certain values, exploring gender identities is a problem. To me, the actual problem(s) causing division are homophobia, anti-LGBTQIA+ mentalities, racism, sexism, xenophobia, ableism, classism, “othering” in general, and capitalism, just as a start. Identity politics helps many of those issues come to the surface, so it’s easy to blame the “carrier” without understanding that division already exists. It is just harder to notice when we aren’t engaging in public discourse the way we are now, especially for people who hold increasing levels of privilege. Though there are no doubt problems within identity politics, especially concerning our communication with each other as a whole, we are villainizing the wrong thing.

Of course, it's easier to sweep all those “isms” (positionalities and intersections) under the rug and walk around the world feeling less defensive, but that isn’t how we find healing. That isn’t how we get to the root of problems. Problems have to be identified to be addressed. If nothing else translates in my garbled, messy rant here, I hope that the idea that difference does not automatically mean division takes the cake. Identity discourse is not automatically divisive unless we are placing identities on a vertical, hierarchical scale of “better” and “worse” or “good” and “bad.” Discrimination against people different from us is problematic but finding “our people” and creating groups where we find support tailored to our needs is not inherently an issue. People who form a group because they love chess and want to be around other people who love chess are not a problem. LGBTQIA+ people who find other LGBTQIA+ people to hang out with are not the problem… In a world hostile to our very existence, queer people need each other more than I can eloquently state here. We are not the ones saying that other identities cannot or should not exist. We make more space for variance and uniqueness within and for those identities. Often, these are the only spaces where we can be fully open about who we are and experience widespread support, especially since we live in a world where some people believe that we shouldn’t be here at all. Instead of pointing the finger at a group and being like, “How dare you be distinguished as a group!”, perhaps it would be more beneficial to think about why the people form the group and how they benefit from it. How does being in the group give them a sense of safety or understanding that they don’t get elsewhere? How have we failed those people, if at all? (For example, I wouldn’t say we’ve failed anyone who is forming a rollerblading club.) What can we do to make our world better for them so that they can find peace and love in more spaces?

Jean-Luc Picard once said, “We humans know our past even when we’re ashamed of it.” Even though that collective shadow work can be intense, we need to get to the point where we can say this too. We have to look into the colonialist, white supremacist, Eurocentric, and sexist timelines we once created, because they were never really healed or resolved (though we want to believe they were). Their lineages still exist as our current infrastructures. Many of these problems are so culturally embedded and subverted that we don’t even recognize them anymore, and we throw a tantrum when we don’t get to pretend they magically disappeared. Many of the extreme people disappeared, but the systems of oppression that were instituted still exist even if someone does not intend harm. (And not all extremists are gone. We’re in the middle of a massive trans genocide for goodness sake.) Just because something does not affect us overtly or personally does not mean it does not exist or does not deserve attention and resolution. Not only do we need to eventually line up with Picard’s summarization of his people’s development where we know our past… We must also learn how to be radically honest about our “present” as well, even when it hurts and even when it is hard.

 I realize that research on communication techniques encourages us to find similarities more often than we find differences, but I would like to deconstruct that somewhat. Yes, similarities are fantastic, but as a collective, we need to learn how to healthily engage with difference and appreciate it. We shouldn’t need to find a ton of similarities between/among people for those people to be worthy of respect or validation. I shouldn’t have to hear that Sarah and I both love fantasy books to appreciate and respect the fact that she is cisgender while I am nonbinary. I shouldn’t have to learn that Daniel has similar taste in interior decorating to respect and acknowledge that he is attracted to all genders as a pansexual person. All in all, I think that the emphasis on identity right now is fantastic. After years of suppression, oppression, and dismissal, it feels so good to be able to spread my wings, though I understand that not everyone else has the freedom or ability to do it as openly as I do. Defining oneself is not the problem… Talking about gender, race, sexual orientation, and differences between groups is not the problem. The underlying systems of latent and active hate and discrimination are the true culprits. I have extracted a quote from Ursula K Le Guin’s book, The Left Hand of Darkness, where a main character (Ai) is speaking into the deep love and connection he has found with a gender-fluid being from another civilization/culture: “But it was from the difference between us, not from the affinities and likenesses, but from the difference, that that love came: and it was itself the bridge, the only bridge, across what divided us.”

Redirecting the focus of a conversation to a less relevant or irrelevant “problem” is a manipulation tactic used by people who don’t like the topic on the table, though I will definitely leave room for people who are not being intentionally manipulative and just follow the crowd. Dissolving identity, pretending ideology is useless, and hijacking conversations to place blame on people drawing attention to what needs to be healed is not how starseeds and spiritual people should be behaving at all. Dissolving identity is not where we are as a collective, and it is not serving us to play high and mighty and pretend we’re “outside” of political and identity discourse (I see that a lot in the starseed precincts and spaces). It honestly shocks me that people who say they have lived many lifetimes in so many different parts of the universe have such a hard time understanding why identity is important. The earth experience is a unique one for sure… We are a waystation of difference and nuance, but as supposed starseeds, we have already encountered massive differences throughout our many lives. I am not sure why it feels so “new” to the people identifying as starseeds or wanderers. The beauty of gender is that we do have some labels and definitions for those who find freedom in those things… But we also have tons of space for new developments, realizations, fresh identities and viewpoints, and ways to authentically bring forth who we really are. Even within those labels and identities, there is plenty of flexibility for people to say, “You know what? My experience of being a man/woman/nonbinary/genderfluid person is not exactly like yours, but we’re both men/women/nonbinaries/genderfluid people, and it’s fantastic that we both found something we resonate with.” I feel so lucky to be part of this. =)

Moving on, calling people who give birth “birthing people” is not erasing womanhood. I bring up this example because it’s one of the hottest topics in Sedona right now. The fact is that experiencing pregnancy and birth has never been exclusive to the sex-based definition of womanhood. An example that can be scientifically corroborated is: Intersex people, who do not all neatly fit into the collective category of cis/AFAB people have given birth all throughout history. (Some of them may identify as women and some may not.) Perhaps they have chromosomes or genitalia or gonads that are AMAB AND AFAB as we would recognize those things. Chromosomal or genital configuration does not preclude someone from being a woman, nor does it automatically segue into the label just because someone has the capacity to give birth (What if the person also has the ability to impregnate?). For people who say they don’t like “groupishness” the “womb” and womanhood rigidity of today comes off as very exclusive and scientifically uninformed. As I said, gender is not meant to have a stiff, scientific definition, but for people who like to turn to sex assignment to define womanhood and manhood, you have some big gray areas in your thinking to come to terms with too. Someone who does not identify as a woman, or who does not fit into the category of AFAB only, is not waging a war on womanhood. They are simply existing. They are not taking your experience from you or saying you cannot identify as a “birthing woman.” I think it’s more of a culture shock right now because these topics have been so subverted and hidden over the years. I get that it can be scary when the things we tried to hide away from as a collective join the sphere of our everyday considerations, but we have to process these things to grow and love each other. Womanhood and manhood are more flexible than our colloquial ideas initially indicate, and I think that is very liberating. =)

Whew, that was long. I went on a very unrefined journey there, but I am grateful to be able to talk about my simple little thoughts and have them read by lovely people like you. <3 As for how I discovered my identity, I did not discover it early on… It was an early to mid-twenties kind of thing for me (assuming that “early” refers to childhood). I identify as nonbinary, most specifically (and most often) as agender. Maybe one day I will find some other cosmic gender I resonate with, but for now, the agender wavelength fits me best. I feel too expansive (expansive does not mean better) to fit into most of the definitions we have right now, especially within the binary. =) Some of the keystones that helped me arrive at this identity were: 1. Reflecting on my many parallel (past) lives and realizing that gender is so nuanced and varied, there is no single universal definition for anything. 2. Feeling very “off” when identified as a woman. 3. Listening to other people share their amazing stories about discovering or experiencing their own identities. 4. Reading The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin (A book that explores gender on a planet where identities are much more fluid than they are on earth. The people can literally change it at will once a month by being touched by someone they favor! So cool!! It’s dry at points, but I think all “starseeds” should at least take a look at it. When I was reading it, I was like, “This was an option this whole time?!” =)

I am so glad you want to come to Sedona!! We love it when you all come to see us here. <3 Yes, we have our challenges, but every place and community does. Like I have said before, we are not beyond the reach of compassion, empathy, connection, and community love here, and despite the problems, we see those lovely things manifesting here on the regular too. Thank you for your wonderful questions and for giving me the opportunity to express, and dare I say, discuss my identity. =) <3

*** I am adding this extra bit to the end of my answer a few days after posting this original response. The purpose of this bonus is for it to be utilized as extra thought-fodder, and because I was reminded of it when I was rearranging my bookshelves and came into contact with this tome... In the book Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti, a quote that has stuck with me for years rang true again when I reflected back on what I said above. ***

“Fascist doctrine stresses monistic values: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer (one people, one rule, one leader). The people are no longer to be concerned with class divisions but must see themselves as part of a harmonious whole, rich and poor as one, a view that supports the economic status quo by cloaking the ongoing system of class exploitation. This is in contrast to a left agenda that advocates the articulation of popular demands and a sharpened awareness of social injustice and class struggles.”

Although what I wrote about primarily concerned gender identity and sexual orientation, the intersections of class and race examination were not meant to be excluded from the overarching theme. With the constant emphasis on “oneness” and the “don’t see difference” ideologies floating around (especially in spirituality), this quote is very chilling. It is always important to see difference and engage with its many junctions to expose exploitation, oppression, and abuse, which lenses such as intersectional feminism hope to do. This is how justice is achieved and how the old ways are challenged to give rise to a world that better serves the good of ALL its people.