Is intersectionality the new caste system?

In practice of intersectionality is weaponised

Question: Is intersectionality the new caste system?
Position‹2 of 3›: Intersectionality works in theory but not practice
Argument‹3 of 3: In practice of intersectionality is weaponised

The theory of intersectionality seeks equality and accountability but it is weaponised by extreme views in practice.

The argument

Intersectionality is a term which is quickly gathering interest. As a word which seeks to raise awareness of discrimination and the many forms it can take, it is seen as a sign of inclusivity and equality by many progressives. This should be a good thing, but often it is used by people who take its meaning to extremes. Intersectionality aims at identifying discrimination. It attempts to demonstrate how different circumstances and backgrounds, such as race, gender, sexuality, disability, combined lead to the discrimination faced by people. But while these issues should bring people together, in practice we see it work differently. Extremists on both sides of the political spectrum use intersectionality as a buzzword to strike fear and further their own agenda. On the extreme left, the term, which seeks to help us give voice to those who may not be heard is being used to silence those with different views. And on the extreme right, it is used to instil fear. People who might accept intersectionality’s true meaning become afraid of the extreme, and often louder, voices which seek to use change to further their own interests. Thus, a term which should serve to unite is being used to pull us apart.

Premises

[P1]Intersectionality's aim — to show how race, gender, sexuality, and disability combine to produce discrimination — should bring people together. [P2] In practice, extremists on the left use it to silence dissenting views and on the right to instil fear, weaponising the term to further their own agendas. [C] Therefore, intersectionality works in theory but, because it is weaponised in practice, it pulls people apart rather than uniting them.

Counter-arguments

Most theories have advocates who take extreme views. Lack of understanding about the true meaning of intersectionality and people seeking to follow their own agenda leads to twisted definitions. More awareness, and the promotion of more moderate views will lead to more open discourse to promote equality.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Stating a concept's aim is not the same as showing that it works in theory, and the premise skips the theoretical objections entirely — whether overlapping categories can be analysed additively, and whether the framework yields claims that could be tested. The position asserts theoretical soundness and this premise assumes it. [Rejecting P2] The evidence is a characterisation of unnamed "extremists on both sides", with no example, source or measure of how common the behaviour is. The two halves also describe different things: using a term to silence and using it to frighten are not the same misuse, and the second is a misrepresentation of the concept by its opponents rather than a use of it at all. The counter-argument's reply — that every theory attracts extreme adherents, which says nothing about the theory — is not addressed, and on this reasoning any idea whatever could be shown not to work in practice.