Reviewing the word and concept of intersectionality, it seems well-meaning. ‘We’ perceive that ‘you’ are being oppressed, and that your oppression similarly originates with our oppressors, or affects you a similar way. Because what ‘you’ want may involve some of what ‘I’ want, or that the attainment of our different goals pits us against the same challenge/oppressor, we should then link arms and attack this ‘oppressor’ together. 
Like many modern inventions of language, it suggests progress toward a goal. The intersection of these efforts focuses on where two groups, or movements, or creeds meet. Theoretically, after attainment of stated goals, each of us goes our separate way happy, or hopefully together forever happy.
Is that so?
When we look at paths that cross at an intersection, the point at which they meet are just that: a point. 
The lines will continue along their original paths, to different destinations somewhere infinite.
Having fired a rifle at a target, I and anyone else who uses firearms will tell you that a variance of just one millimeter
looking down the sights of your weapon results in missing your target by substantially more the further the round (line) travels. At three hundred meters, you could be as much as one meter off target.
I suggest that this is occurring with the varying social movements.
Among the list of problems facing the Black community, and American life in general, has been the absence of fathers in children’s lives. The current number is seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Almost fifty percent overall. It is now irrefutable, that the single most harmful practice in the Black family, and black community, is the lack of black male leadership in the home and in the community.
But, here comes the intersection. The current wave of the feminist movement means well (?) in their support of Black equity/liberation movements and the like. 
To state the feminist agenda simply (the list is LONG), it is the promotion of female autonomy. A key part of this is destruction of gender roles and de-emphasis of male leadership.
In contradiction, the black community needs male leadership, and Black families are in disarray because of the loss of gender roles and the observable chaos of African American female autonomy. This is a conflict, the point at which both groups are fighting the same oppression is finite—while the vectors to their respective goals are infinitely divergent.
Black women who have ‘bought in’ to the recreated African community concept desire to have black men assume their place as ‘Kings’, thereby making them ‘Queens’. In contrast, feminists who are supporting black movements would eliminate any semblance of a man as a king. Both seem to be fighting the boogeyman of white supremacy, but for white women it is a fight against white MALE supremacy.
There is also a group of Black female historical revisionists who have introduced the idea that African tribes were matriarchal, and that recapturing their cultural roots includes repurposing men as servant army ants in their female-led ant colonies (ignoring that these female run tribes no longer exist–hmmm).
This is not a healthy alliance. I suggest that black women who seek this link-up of movements fall into varying groups, of which I have identified two, neither of which may be trusted. There are more factions, but these are two that are most destructive to the black community’s future.
- Group one seeks to form any intersectional relationship, anywhere, with anyone, and are totally ignorant of later conflicts of interest; Or, they are aware of the conflict but confident they/she can manipulate the situation to self-benefit at a later time. For example, any black woman who has homosexual friends (either sex) is in this group.
- Group two is feminist motivated and looking at the blueprint of white feminists and opportunities to intersection specifically with them. They seek power and status and admire how white feminists stabbed their white men in the back and took their positions. Their goal is to similarly advance Black men, through martydom (see George Floyd) to achieve voice and power, but when once achieved, seize the throne though destruction of imperfect men in power positions (see NY Attorney General Letitia James,).
An example of this is in current events. The very same feminists who announced intersectionality with LGBT+++ movements are now complaining about transgender women who are coming up through female ranks. Feminists tried to use ‘intersectionality’ to consolidate political voice and power, but the bomb they made blew up in their faces.
Instead of a weapon against men, the transgenders used the feminists instead, and the former men are creating all sorts of headaches for the girl power movement. They did not see this coming. Men did. That’s why we’re laughing.
Intersectionality equals using people.
The women who demanded that transgender persons be accepted unconditionally never considered that these males would enter their ‘female spaces’ and begin to push them out of their positions.
This is yet another threat faced by women and the Black Community. African Americans need the men of the community to lead, but feminist promotion by definition is counter to that. White feminists are promoting their selfish needs and not what African Americans need. And Black feminists, in their desire to have what white women have, are emulating their Caucasian sisters.
If there is to be any erection of a strong black community, feminists must not be entertained. ESPECIALLY BY MEN.
