I was having a discussion about this elsewhere with some people pushing pop culture intersectional arguments.
A great deal of the academic work done on this subject was stuff Dr. Curry cites either as he speaks or in the book. That book is extremely dense with study and information. If anyone here hasn't read it, I strongly recommend it. I got it about a month before it was slated to be release due to a very early pre-order.

Here are my thoughts on privilege... much of which Dr. Curry has pointed out before:

1)As you may know, the language of Privilege has been around since the days of WEB Dubois in roughly 1903. However, when a white woman starts to talk about it, suddenly it's all the rave. This is very common within institutions. Black scholars talk about something for years, and as soon as a white voice comes along saying THE EXACT SAME THING, it's considered valid. This is the case with Tim Wise as well who gives you ideas taken from scholars as early as the 19th century such as T. Thomas Fortune or even Malcolm X.
2)Privilege discourse is largely about white people's feelings and more importantly, deflection from the original privilege discourse. When we examine Peggy McIntosh's professed reasoning for adopting the idea, it was because she was accused of being oppressive to work with even though she felt she was a "nice person." Her invocation of the language of privilege finds her looking to get the heat off of white people for their participation in a system which disenfranchises non-white people by claiming that it's not just white people and that EVERYBODY has privilege. The most ridiculous thing about a McIntosh-inspired white privilege discourse is that it doesn't require white people to divest themselves of any privilege by making their own lives as contingent as that of, say, a black man or trans person in a white patriarchy. In other words, my life is the basis on which I interact with American society. White people do not experience that contingency, and they don't want to, because their lives are the basis of both their own privilege AND the contingency of mine. White privilege says "well whiteness is just one of many privileges, LOOK AT YOURSELF", and in that way it is a deflection and a way of turning the responsibility back on the victim. For those reasons, it's disingenuous and dishonest in its claim to fight against racism.

Here's what I had to say about intersectionality:

Athena Mutua states: "...intersectionaly is an outgrowth of black feminist thought and was developed initially to explain, explicate, and make visible black women�s experiences. It suggested that black women were not simply subjected to a system or social structure of racial oppression, but were also subject to the social institution of sexism. Black women, presumably unlike black men or white women were subject not to one, but to two or more social regimes of subjugation. In suggesting this, intersectionality also made a second claim about identity. It claimed that(initially some) identities were shaped, affected, and perhaps constructed by, as well as, sat at the very intersection of these multiple crisscrossing subordinating structures."

This is why I find black men to be the best group to illustrate why intersectional logic is false or insufficent, independent of the fact that I am a black man.

It would be fine if intersectionality stuck solely with addressing issues of black women and called itself "black women's studies." The problem is that it classified only black women as existing at an intersection of gender and race; in doing so, it posits that black men are privileged by gender and is therefore false and dangerous, as that notion is disproven in every area of life we study. "The Man-Not" by Tommy J Curry does a great job of expounding on this point. Also, the work of R.W. Connell (a transgendered professor), which studied the idea of hegemonic masculinity, is clear that racialized males are attacked by hegemonic masculinity as they are seen as threats. Mutua states: "One of the first significant critiques or expansions of the intersectional idea was the notion that structures of race and gender did not simply intersect but mutually and synergistically shape, reinforce, and constitute one another."

Mutua also states: "(multidimensionality) employs intersectionality to analyze a given intersectional point in the context of multidimensional identities and structures. However, the analyst needs information about the structure and needs to know not only that the structure exists, but how it operates."

The final part about "how it operates is extremely important, as that information explains why "male privilege" doesn't apply to black men in a white patriarchy.

Multidimensionality was necessary as a separate discipline, because intersectionality tends to view "gender" as being synonymous with female. This is the main reason I find intersectional logic lacking. Intersectionality was found to be somewhat inadequte to capture the complexity of women's lives but even more inadequate regarding men since it failed to fully address internal and external rankings, for instance. Legal scholars of all identifications, including transgender, participated in developing Multidimensionality, which ecompasses and compensates for the shortcomings of intersectionality.

With that said, every time a claim is made that ONLY black women and trans people occupy an intersection of race and gender, it is another denial of the gendered racism that black men face. This is why it's offensive. While many scholars have critiqued the insufficiency of the initial phases of intersectionality and expanded upon it, pop culture references to it still call back to the limited scope of its origin in that it pretends black men are privileged by virtue of being men, even though this is both historically and presently false. As a matter of fact, the intersection of blackness and maleness leaves black men with no privilege at all as white patriarchy targets racialized males for extermination, especially black men. This simply is not arguable. And that's not ME playing oppression olympics; that's me asking that others stop doing so at the expense of black men. Furthermore, term "gendered racism" refers to the unique discrimination against black men, because the term "sexism" was generally accepted to refer to discrimination against women. This term was first used due to the extremely disproportionate rates of racial profiling experiences by black men. This is yet another reason why black men can't be divorced from the discussion of these subjects AND why male privilege doesn't apply to black men. Identity politics are born from these previously mentioned misconceptions and reliance on title 7 which only classified white woman as minorities in fear of the progress of black people. By adopting such politics, we end up with terms like "most marginalized" as if we're in competition with one another, due to some trying to center identities for attention rather than the acquisition of material rights. Identity politics cause us to lose focus