The trouble with theories of intersectionality is that they don’t go far enough. Maybe I’m taking the metaphor too literally, and I definitely could stand to do more reading of work that self-consciously employs and examines intersectionality, but the lines that cross seem remarkably unaffected by the moment and point of intersection; they exist prior to the convergence and continue past it in an unaltered state. Two of the favorite sub-metaphors deployed by intersectional theorists reveal the constancy of the lines: the notion of overlap and the comparison to a puzzle. In each of these, the elements that form the intersection are created independently of the encounter; overlapping circles, for instance, and puzzle pieces exist statically, as constant entities, even if, as in the former, their confluence is capable of changing. The problem of intersectionality, then, is to discover the point(s) of conjunction, but not to examine the elements that form it, which are completely autonomous. It’s a new kind of essentialism.