Imagine a policy meant to support women in the workplace, but it only helps white, middle-class women. Many will still face overlapping barriers that the policy ignores. This is the problem intersectionality seeks to address: from the EU’s Gender Equality Strategy to the UN’s SDGs, an intersectional approach is seen as fundamental for inclusive and effective policies. Yet, its meaning remains vague or diluted. What does ‘intersectional’ truly mean? And why should we strive for an intersectional approach?
The term ‘intersectionality’ was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) to describe how race and gender combine to shape Black women’s experiences of discrimination. It has since grown into a framework for understanding overlapping systems of oppression, drawing on Black feminist theory, the Combahee River Collective Statement (1977), and Patricia Hill Collins’ “matrix of domination” (Collins, 1990). Over time, intersectionality has expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, class, and nationality, influencing feminist theory, critical race studies, and political science (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Collins & Bilge, 2016).
Despite its promise, intersectionality faces challenges in politics and policymaking: while it has the potential to drive meaningful change, it can also be reduced to a tokenistic tool, serving diversity goals without addressing underlying power structures (Cho, Crenshaw & McCall, 2013).
What could intersectionality achieve?
Intersectionality offers a transformative vision for politics. At its core, it challenges the idea that inclusion is enough to achieve equality. Rather than adding diverse individuals to existing systems, it aims to change the systems themselves to address inequality and power imbalances (Collins & Bilge, 2016). When governments consider how race, gender, class, and other identities intersect, they can design policies that respond to real-world complexity. Examples are healthcare reforms that address poverty, racial discrimination, and gender bias simultaneously (Hancock, 2007). This approach seeks to ensure that no one falls through the cracks of one-dimensional policy frameworks.
Intersectionality can also enhance political representation: by acknowledging multiple marginalizations, it opens doors for leadership among groups historically excluded from power. This is not just about adding more women or minorities to political spaces; it is about creating conditions where diverse voices can influence decisions and shape agendas (Smooth, 2011).
In short, intersectionality is not a luxury; it is essential to build truly democratic systems.
Why is it hard to implement?
Yet practical hurdles remain. One major challenge is conceptual ambiguity. There is no universal agreement on what intersectionality means in practice, leading to inconsistent applications (Carastathis, 2016). This results in policies that claim to be intersectional but fail to deliver meaningful change. A study by the University of Edinburgh examining how equality organisations apply intersectionality, found that groups used five different definitions of the concept. As a result, even though organisations often supported the idea of intersectionality, the implementation varied widely and lacked a consistent, structural approach, creating challenges in cooperation between organisations (Christoffersen, 2021).
Another obstacle is tokenism. Too often, intersectionality is reduced to symbolic gestures such as diversity statements or isolated initiatives without addressing systemic power relations (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013). Institutional resistance adds to the problem: political systems often focus on single-issue solutions, like gender quotas or racial diversity targets, which overlook how different forms of disadvantage, such as race, class, disability, or sexuality, interact (Hancock, 2011). While well-intentioned, these measures can miss the full complexity of people’s experiences. Designing policies or research that capture intersecting identities requires detailed data and innovative analysis methods, which many institutions lack (Hancock, 2007).
From theory to practice: From the Pay Transparency Directive to the EU Gender Equality Strategy post-2025
These challenges are not abstract; they are playing out in real time. According to a study by the European Parliament, only two Member States, Belgium and Spain, legally recognize intersectional discrimination and even at the EU level, the first steps towards an intersectional approach have only been taken recently (Zamfir, 2025). The EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025 for instance explicitly acknowledges that gender interacts with other forms of discrimination, including race, age, disability, and sexual orientation and promotes intersectionality is presented as a crosscutting principle.
However, many organizations have argued that this approach is not really reflected in practice. ENAR, for instance, criticized the EU Gender Equality Strategy for being too vague about intersectionality and lacking concrete, binding measures. They also pointed out that the strategy fails to require the collection of detailed data disaggregated by both race and gender, making it hard to fully understand intersectional discrimination (ENAR, 2020). Finally, there is a concern about implementation: turning commitments into real structural change demands significant political will, institutional capacity, and resources (ENAR, 2020).
The Pay Transparency Directive might be a step in the good direction. Adopted in 2023, the Directive defined intersectional discrimination for the first time in EU law. Courts and equality bodies must now address cases where people face multiple, overlapping disadvantages, setting a precedent for future EU policies (Zamfir, 2025). While this is crucial, its effective implementation will truly determine whether the Directive will be able to set the standard for effective intersectional action at the EU level.
Turning intersectionality into action
At Eduxo and Politics4Her, we believe intersectionality should move beyond theory and become a practical tool for shaping fair and inclusive policies. This means embedding intersectionality into governance structures, ensuring accountability, and creating tangible impact.
Here are concrete steps that can help policymakers and institutions make intersectionality a reality rather than a buzzword.
- Institutionalize Intersectionality in Policy Frameworks: intersectionality should not remain a rhetorical commitment. Intersectionality should become a mandatory requirement in governance frameworks to promote more inclusive outcomes. This means integrating intersectionality into Gender Equality Strategies, anti-discrimination laws, and funding criteria for research and innovation.
- Develop Intersectionality-Informed Policy Tools: practical toolkits such as the Intersectionality Policymaking Toolkit (Hull et al., 2023) and the UN Women Intersectionality Resource Guide provide structured approaches for policymakers. These toolkits should form the basis to ensure that policies address intersecting inequalities rather than applying a “one-size-fits-all” model.
- Invest in Intersectional Data Collection and Analysis: robust data is essential for operationalizing intersectionality. There are multiple reports, such as the She Figures 2024 report which recommend data analysis techniques to capture complex inequalities (Müller & Humbert, 2024). These should form the basis for intersectional indicators adopted by the EU in monitoring frameworks, ensuring comparability across Member States.
- Integrate Intersectionality into Gender Budgeting: OECD research shows that intersectional gender budgeting can identify overlapping disadvantages and allocate resources more fairly (OECD, 2023). Countries like Sweden and Finland have piloted this approach, demonstrating its feasibility.
- Ensure Accountability and Monitoring: intersectionality must be linked to measurable outcomes. EU-level mechanisms should include mandatory reporting on intersectional impacts. Monitoring systems should track progress across multiple identity dimensions and publish disaggregated data to promote transparency.
- Center Marginalized Voices in Policy Design: evidence from participatory governance models highlights that policies are more effective when co-created with those most affected by intersecting oppressions (Hankivsky, 2012). EU institutions and Member States should institutionalize consultation processes with racialized women, LGBTQI+ communities, and persons with disabilities to ensure substantive equality.
Article by: Chiara Bardi, Martina Ferreccio, Caterina Zamparini