It's telling that you didn't actually address my point.

See, isn't innuendo fun?

Telling of what, precisely? If you think my point is false, please do say so. If you think my example isn't accurate, please say so. If you think my example is accurate but not a good analogy for the original discussion, please explain why that matters when I'm refuting a claim you made that is also not related to the original discussion.

Don't just slather on innuendo. Make arguments consisting of assertions of fact, reasoning from those asserted facts, and conclusions drawn from that reasoning.

The concept of intersectionality was invented by a black woman who definitely has never had any problem pointing out how black men can oppress black women. Nobody wielding the concept need have any discomfort pointing this out. So I don't think anyone has any idea what point you're making here with the repeated innuendo.

If you were hoping to suggest that intersectionality does not allow black people to be considered oppressors, that's just a right-wing caricature of the concept. You should read about intersectionality from sources that actually describe the concept accurately, rather than ones that merely want to sneer at it.

Or, I could refer to what actually occurs in practice. My original point stands.

You promote bad, inauthentic uses of the concept because you want the concept to fail. Why you want the concept to fail is left as a trivial exercise for the reader.

Psychoanalysis goes both ways.

Still waiting for a non-innuendo response. Do you have one?