Psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote back in 1943 his theory of the "need hierarchy," and although the theory has been for the most part debunked, it does still have a few valid points. What Maslow got wrong was erroneously identifying the "needs," the hierarchy part he got spot on. It's almost axiomatic that human beings frame things in terms of their importance from within a top-down rubric. The mavens of political correctness have picked up on this model and employed it as part of their never ending onslaught of human sensibilities (or sensibleness) in the realm of aggrievement. The aggrievement marathon has become so contentious that a hierarchy of aggrievement has emerged in which, because of longevity, or depth of proverbial victimhood, the "race card" still trumps all others, radiating down from there.
Based on the myth of "white privilege," rampant institutionalized discrimination and perpetual victimhood, intersectionality was first introduced by legal scholar Kimberle' Crenshaw in the 1980's. Intersectionality pigeonholes people into permanent underclasses without ever once citing instances where people have been able to overcome these social constructs, either by sheer force of will or some other intrinsic characteristic, e.g. hard work, intelligence, etc.. One may in fact argue that if intersectionality actually exists, it would have prevented Ms. Crenshaw from becoming a legal scholar.
The underlying assumption (among many) it seems, is that if you're black and a woman you lack any positive individual character traits that will enable you to lift yourself above any of the oppressive social constructs that prevent any upward mobility... it is groupthink at its worst. You are, therefore, relegated to permanently being a member of some aggrieved class. In the intersectionality marathon, the more victim groups you should happen to belong to, the more cause for aggrievement and naturally the higher your victim status in the aggrievement hierarchy. They even made a handy chart so you can keep track of where you are...
So, if for example you should happen to be a disabled- black- transgender- midget, you would have hit the intersectionality jackpot... some sort of intersectionality royalty. In truth I'm loath to give this topic too much legitimacy, but it's become a cause celebre with SJW's and the rest of the perennially offended activists... so I suppose some serious explanation is warranted. This video is aimed at children and in a just world would be titled "How To Be Offended."
The assumptions made by the authors of the video are that: 1) If you happen to be part of a minority you will automatically be subject to discrimination; and that you will also be oppressed by people with "privileges" that you don't have. So, we are to believe that if a child is black born into a family with an income of $200,000, because of their race they would be denied many of the "privileges" of a white child born into a home with an income of $15,000... complete and utter nonsense. When I was in college I had to take a course in Constitutional Law that was taught by a radical black feminist. I argued that the judicial system was skewed financially rather than racially- that a rich black guy (like OJ) with a good lawyer would walk, and a poor white guy with a public defender would go to the booty house. The entire intersectionality myth is built on a foundation of erroneous assumptions. This video does much better job explaining intersectionality and its inherent flaws...
The tragic consequence of intersectionality, as Ben Shapiro points out, is that so many people buy into it- but then again, history has shown that being a part of an aggrieved minority has its benefits. It appeals to the laziness in people, especially young people who have a sense of personal entitlement... the "free shit" generation. There's an old saying: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The price of intersectionality is individuality and speaking for myself, I wouldn't trade my individualism for anything... but what do I know, I'm just a straight white male.