The Geometry of Belonging: Seeing the Whole You

In a world quick to categorize, the failure to recognize our overlapping identities—our intersectionality—creates profound harm, especially for the disenfranchised. Embracing a new kind of acceptance might be the key to unlocking empathy and building a more just society.

(Estimated Reading Time: Approx. 35-40 Minutes)

The waiting room hums with the low thrum of forced quiet. Fluorescent lights cast a sterile glow on mismatched chairs and outdated magazines. Maya shifts uncomfortably, clutching a worn folder. She’s here for an intake assessment at a community mental health clinic, a step taken after months of escalating anxiety and a creeping sense of hopelessness. She is a Black woman, a recent immigrant, navigating the complexities of a new culture while carrying the quiet weight of past trauma. She’s also queer, a fact she rarely discloses, and suspects she might have ADHD, a possibility dismissed by a previous doctor who attributed her focus issues to “adjustment stress.” Each facet of her identity feels like a separate vulnerability, a potential point of misunderstanding. As she anticipates the questions—Where are you from? What are your symptoms? What is your relationship status?—a familiar dread settles in. Which parts of herself will she have to downplay, which struggles will be minimized, which strengths overlooked, simply to be legible, to receive help without facing a cascade of assumptions based on only one piece of her intricate whole?

Maya’s quiet anxiety in that waiting room is a microcosm of a vast and complex sociological challenge. We live in a world obsessed with labels, yet profoundly clumsy at understanding how those labels interact within a single human life. We readily categorize people by race, gender, class, sexual orientation, disability, or any number of other markers, but we often fail to grasp how these identities weave together, creating unique tapestries of experience, privilege, and marginalization. This failure of perception, this inability to see the intersections, is not merely an intellectual oversight; it is a source of profound and ongoing harm, particularly for those already pushed to the margins of society.

The term “intersectionality” entered the academic lexicon over three decades ago, coined by the legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw. She developed it initially to articulate a specific legal conundrum: Black women were falling through the cracks of anti-discrimination law because courts often analyzed racism and sexism as separate phenomena.^[1] A Black woman facing hiring discrimination might struggle to prove her case if the employer hired Black men (addressing racism, ostensibly) and white women (addressing sexism, ostensibly), thereby rendering the unique discrimination faced by Black women invisible to the legal framework. Crenshaw’s insight was deceptively simple yet revolutionary: these axes of identity do not operate in parallel universes; they intersect, creating complex social locations where individuals experience compounded forms of bias and disadvantage that single-issue analysis simply cannot capture.^[2]

While born from critical race theory and feminist critique, intersectionality has since become an indispensable tool across the social sciences for understanding the multifaceted nature of inequality. It pushes us beyond simplistic narratives and demands we confront the messy, overlapping realities of lived experience. It reminds us that the challenges faced by a disabled Latinx immigrant are distinct from those faced by a white disabled person or a non-disabled Latinx immigrant. These are not mere additive burdens; they are qualitatively different experiences shaped by the confluence of multiple systems of power—racism, ableism, xenophobia, classism—all operating simultaneously.

Yet, as intersectionality has trickled into broader public discourse, its nuance is often lost, sometimes weaponized or dismissed as mere “identity politics.” What gets obscured in these dilutions is the fundamental human need at its core: the need to be seen, understood, and accepted in one’s entirety. This brings us to the necessity of cultivating what we might call Intersectional Positivity and Acceptance. This isn’t the saccharine, dismissive “good vibes only” brand of positivity that glosses over genuine struggle. Instead, it’s a framework rooted in the challenging practice of radical acceptance, a concept borrowed from therapeutic modalities like Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), which emphasizes acknowledging reality as it is, without judgment, even when that reality is painful.^[3]

Intersectional positivity, then, means actively acknowledging and validating the full spectrum of an individual’s intersecting identities and experiences—the vulnerabilities and the strengths, the systemic barriers and the personal resilience, the trauma and the capacity for joy—all within the context of their unique social location. It means resisting the urge to compartmentalize or pathologize difference. Acceptance, in this light, is not passive tolerance; it is the active creation of social and institutional spaces where individuals, especially those from disenfranchised groups, feel safe, recognized, and valued for the whole, complex persons they are. It is the antidote to the pervasive invalidation that Maya fears in that waiting room, the antidote to being reduced to a single label or having one’s struggles attributed to the wrong cause.

This exploration, therefore, is fundamentally a call to action, particularly for those in professions tasked with care, support, and guidance—therapists, doctors, coaches, educators, social workers, managers. It argues that embedding an intersectional lens into our understanding of empathy is not just an ethical nicety but a prerequisite for effective and just practice. Failing to do so doesn’t just hinder progress; it actively causes harm, reinforcing the very systems of marginalization we claim to oppose. Understanding the geometry of belonging, the way our intersecting identities shape our place in the world, is crucial if we hope to truly support those who feel most acutely the sting of being unseen.

The Theoretical Scaffolding: Why Seeing Intersections Matters

To grasp the weight of intersectional acceptance, it helps to understand the theoretical architecture supporting it. Crenshaw laid the cornerstone, but others have built upon it, offering frameworks that illuminate why recognizing intersecting identities is so crucial for individual well-being and social interaction.

The sociologist Patricia Hill Collins expanded on Crenshaw’s work with her concept of the “matrix of domination.”^[4] Imagine society not as a level playing field, but as a complex grid where lines of power—based on race, gender, class, sexuality, ability, etc.—intersect. Where you land on this grid determines your access to resources, opportunities, and social validation. Collins emphasized that these systems are interlocking; sexism upholds racism, classism reinforces ableism, and so on. They operate not just through overt discrimination but also through institutional policies, cultural norms (hegemony), and everyday interpersonal interactions. For a professional trying to understand a client like Maya, grasping this matrix means recognizing that her anxiety isn’t just a personal neurochemical imbalance; it’s likely interwoven with the chronic stress of navigating racism, the potential insecurity of her immigration status, the anxieties related to concealing her queerness, and the unaddressed possibility of ADHD—all amplified by her position within this matrix. Without this lens, a professional risks treating only the most superficial symptom, ignoring the systemic roots.

Symbolic interactionism, a sociological tradition dating back to George Herbert Mead, offers another crucial perspective.^[5] It posits that our sense of self, our identity, isn’t fixed but is constantly being shaped through our interactions with others and the meanings we assign to those interactions. We develop our “self-concept” partly by internalizing how we believe others see us (the “generalized other”). For individuals whose identities consistently deviate from the dominant norm—whose race is minoritized, whose gender is non-conforming, whose neurotype is different—societal feedback is often negative, invalidating, or erasing. Professional encounters become critical junctures. When a therapist uses the correct pronouns, when a doctor asks about cultural background with genuine curiosity, when a teacher acknowledges a student’s learning difference without judgment, these interactions act as powerful validating mirrors. They communicate: “I see you, in your complexity, and you belong.” Conversely, interactions that ignore or misinterpret these identities reinforce societal invalidation, chipping away at self-worth and making vulnerability feel perilous. The simple act of recognition by someone in a position of authority can be profoundly reparative for a marginalized self.

Furthermore, critical theories—from Critical Race Theory and Feminist Theory to Queer Theory and Disability Studies—provide essential tools for dissecting the power dynamics inherent in professional relationships.^[6] These frameworks urge us to question supposedly neutral standards and expose how dominant perspectives often masquerade as universal truths. They highlight how diagnostic manuals, therapeutic modalities, and institutional procedures can be embedded with biases that disadvantage those outside the norm. A critical lens pushes professionals to ask: Whose knowledge is valued here? Whose experiences are centered? Am I unconsciously reproducing societal power imbalances in this interaction? It demands humility and a willingness to de-center one’s own perspective to truly hear the lived experience of the disenfranchised client, recognizing that their experience of navigating oppression constitutes a valid and vital form of knowledge.

Yet, a purely critical focus on oppression risks overlooking agency and resilience. This is where integrating strengths-based perspectives, common in social work, becomes vital for the “positivity” component.^[7] This approach actively seeks out and affirms the inherent strengths, coping skills, and resources that individuals possess, often developed precisely because of the challenges they’ve faced. For Maya, her resilience in immigrating, her capacity for empathy perhaps heightened by her own experiences of marginalization, or her unique creative thinking possibly linked to ADHD, are all strengths to be recognized alongside her struggles. This aligns with the principle of Radical Acceptance: acknowledging the difficult reality of systemic barriers and personal pain without letting it define the person entirely.^[3] It’s about holding the tension: validating the hardship while simultaneously affirming the individual’s worth and potential.

Together, these theoretical threads weave a compelling argument for why intersectional understanding is the bedrock of meaningful empathy. It equips professionals with the cognitive map to understand systemic context, the interactional tools to build trust through validation, the critical awareness to navigate power dynamics responsibly, and the strengths-based orientation to foster hope and agency. It transforms empathy from a well-intentioned feeling into a skilled, informed, and impactful practice.

The Tangible Gains: How Intersectional Empathy Heals and Empowers

When professionals move beyond theoretical understanding and embody intersectional empathy in their practice, the positive consequences are tangible, rippling outward from the individual to the community.

First, let’s clarify what we mean by empathy in this context. It’s not simply feeling sorry for someone (sympathy). It involves both cognitive empathy—the intellectual grasp of another’s perspective, informed by an understanding of their intersecting identities and the societal forces acting upon them—and affective empathy—the capacity to resonate with their emotional state, to feel with them, without becoming overwhelmed or appropriating their experience.^[8] Crucially, in a professional setting, this understanding and resonance must translate into compassionate, informed action.

The most immediate benefit for disenfranchised individuals is the potential for building trust in relationships often fraught with historical mistrust. Imagine Maya, in that intake session. If the clinician asks thoughtful questions that signal an awareness of potential immigrant experiences, uses inclusive language regarding sexuality, and perhaps even gently inquires if focus issues have ever been explored through a neurodiversity lens, Maya is likely to feel a sense of relief, of being seen. This validation counters the expectation of misunderstanding. Research consistently shows that a strong therapeutic alliance, built on trust and rapport, is one of Veľ the most significant predictors of positive outcomes in therapy and coaching.^[9] For individuals who have been repeatedly let down or harmed by systems, this initial experience of genuine recognition can be the difference between engaging in help-seeking or retreating.

This trust directly enables improved outcomes. When clients feel safe and understood, they are more willing to be vulnerable, share critical information, and collaborate actively in finding solutions. A doctor who understands the heightened risk of diabetes in certain South Asian communities and discusses dietary changes with cultural sensitivity is more likely to see adherence than one who offers generic advice. A therapist who recognizes that a Black client’s hypervigilance might stem from racial trauma, rather than solely diagnosing an anxiety disorder, can offer more effective, trauma-informed care. A special education teacher who understands that an autistic student’s resistance stems from sensory overload or communication differences, not defiance, can implement accommodations that foster learning instead of escalating conflict. By tailoring interventions to the specific intersectional reality of the individual, professionals achieve far greater efficacy. The result is better health, improved mental well-being, greater educational attainment, and more effective problem-solving for those who previously received inadequate or even harmful support.

The gains, however, are not merely individual; they are profoundly sociological. Each instance of effective, intersectionally-informed care chips away at systemic health and wellness disparities.^[10] When professionals consistently challenge stereotypes through their practice—seeing the strength in the single mother navigating poverty, the competence in the visibly disabled employee, the validity of the non-binary person’s identity—they contribute to shifting broader societal attitudes. Furthermore, individuals who feel validated and empowered in professional settings are often better equipped to advocate for themselves and others in different spheres of life. They may feel more confident participating in community initiatives, challenging discrimination elsewhere, or simply navigating the world with a stronger sense of self-worth. Widespread adoption of intersectional acceptance within institutions fosters social inclusion, reduces intergroup friction, and ultimately contributes to a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Validating the individual becomes a pathway to strengthening the collective social fabric.

The Shadow Side: Invisibility, Masking, and the Trauma of Non-Acceptance

Conversely, the failure to adopt an intersectional lens inflicts substantial, often invisible, wounds. When individuals feel their complex identities are ignored, dismissed, or pathologized, the consequences can range from chronic stress and missed opportunities to severe mental health crises and retraumatization.

One of the most pervasive and damaging consequences, particularly for neurodivergent individuals, is the phenomenon of masking or camouflaging.^[11] Imagine spending every social or professional interaction consciously monitoring your tone of voice, suppressing natural physical movements (like stimming), forcing uncomfortable eye contact, mimicking the facial expressions of others, and scripting conversations in your head—all to appear “normal,” to avoid negative judgment or outright discrimination. This is the daily reality for many autistic people or those with ADHD living in a world largely designed by and for neurotypicals. Masking isn’t about deception; it’s a survival strategy born of non-acceptance. The pressure to mask is often amplified for those at the intersections. A queer autistic person might feel they need to mask both their neurotype and their queerness in certain environments. A Black person with ADHD might feel extra pressure to suppress hyperactive traits to avoid racist stereotypes about impulsivity or aggression.

The psychological toll of this constant performance is immense. Research links chronic masking to staggering levels of burnout, exhaustion, anxiety disorders, depression, and even increased risk of suicidality.^[12] It requires enormous cognitive resources, leaving little mental energy for other tasks. More insidiously, it fosters a profound disconnect from one’s authentic self. Individuals may lose touch with their own needs, feelings, and interests, leading to identity confusion and a pervasive sense of being an imposter. This internal alienation is a direct result of external environments—including professional settings—that fail to offer the safety required to unmask and be genuine. When a therapist mistakes masking for genuine social ease, or an employer praises the masked performance without understanding its cost, they inadvertently reinforce this harmful dynamic.

Compounding this issue is the failure of diagnostic systems to adequately account for intersectionality. The historical biases embedded in diagnostic criteria mean that countless individuals, particularly women, people of color, and gender-diverse people, live with undiagnosed neurodevelopmental conditions like autism or ADHD.^[13, 15] Their traits may present differently or be attributed by biased clinicians to other causes—anxiety, trauma, personality disorders, or even cultural stereotypes.^[Reference needed on diagnostic bias] Living without the correct explanatory framework for one’s struggles often leads to decades of self-blame, shame, chronic underemployment, relationship difficulties, and a significantly elevated risk of co-occurring mental health conditions.^[16] The failure of professionals to consider neurodiversity through an intersectional lens condemns many disenfranchised individuals to navigate the world without crucial self-understanding or access to appropriate support.

Finally, the experience of living at the intersections of marginalization often involves exposure to compounded trauma, abuse, and neglect. Systemic discrimination itself is traumatic. Furthermore, neurodivergent individuals or those with disabilities may be statistically more vulnerable to interpersonal abuse or exploitation.^[17] The chronic invalidation experienced when one’s identities are consistently dismissed by family, peers, or institutions constitutes a form of emotional neglect that can be deeply damaging, potentially leading to Complex PTSD (CPTSD). When professionals lack an intersectional framework, they may fail to recognize the complex interplay of systemic oppression, interpersonal trauma, neurodivergence, and mental health. They might misattribute trauma responses to inherent character flaws, or offer interventions that inadvertently re-traumatize the client by ignoring crucial aspects of their identity and history. The cost of this professional blindness is borne most heavily by those already carrying the weight of multiple vulnerabilities.

The Data Doesn’t Lie: Quantifying the Harm of Neglect

The harms described above are not merely anecdotal; they are reflected in sobering statistics that reveal the tangible costs of neglecting intersectional identities in professional and societal systems.

Consider health disparities. While disparities based on race or socioeconomic status are well-documented, an intersectional analysis reveals starker realities. Black women in the United States, for example, face maternal mortality rates roughly three times higher than those of white women, a tragic statistic linked to the combined impacts of systemic racism in healthcare, implicit bias leading to dismissed concerns, and the physiological “weathering” effect of chronic stress from discrimination.^[18] It’s not just race or gender; it’s the specific intersection. Similarly, research consistently shows that LGBTQ+ individuals of color report poorer health outcomes and face greater barriers to accessing culturally competent care compared to both their white LGBTQ+ peers and heterosexual individuals of color, highlighting the compounded burden of navigating racism alongside homophobia and transphobia within healthcare systems.^[19] These are not unfortunate coincidences; they are predictable outcomes of systems that fail to account for intersecting vulnerabilities.

Access to quality mental healthcare reveals similar inequities. While overall access is challenging, marginalized groups face disproportionate hurdles. Racial and ethnic minorities are statistically less likely to receive mental health treatment, and when they do, the care is often of lower quality or less culturally attuned.^[20] Language barriers remain a significant obstacle for immigrant communities.^[Reference for language barriers] Finding therapists skilled in affirming neurodiversity is difficult; finding therapists skilled in affirming neurodiversity and understanding the nuances of racial identity or LGBTQ+ experiences can feel nearly impossible for many, leading to cycles of inadequate care or giving up on seeking help altogether.^[Reference needed on therapist competency gaps] The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found staggering rates of respondents avoiding healthcare due to fear of discrimination, with even higher rates reported by trans people of color.^[21]

Diagnostic inequity further illustrates the problem. Studies have shown, for instance, that Black boys exhibiting behaviors consistent with ADHD are more likely than white boys to be diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, potentially leading to punitive rather than supportive interventions.^[Reference needed for diagnostic bias race/ADHD] The documented tendency to misdiagnose autistic women with personality disorders or anxiety reflects a failure to recognize how autistic traits can manifest differently across genders, often due to societal pressures leading to more adept masking.^[13] These diagnostic errors aren’t just clerical mistakes; they deny individuals accurate self-knowledge and access to appropriate, often life-changing, supports and accommodations. They are a direct result of assessment tools and clinical judgments failing to incorporate an intersectional understanding.

Finally, the insidious impact of microaggressions cannot be overstated. These everyday slights, insults, and invalidations—whether based on race, gender, sexuality, disability, or another identity—function like a constant, low-grade stressor.^[23] Research links cumulative exposure to microaggressions to negative mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and trauma symptoms. For individuals holding multiple marginalized identities, the sources of these microaggressions multiply. Imagine the exhaustion of navigating subtle racist comments at work, followed by a doctor’s appointment where one’s chronic pain is dismissed as “psychosomatic” due to gender bias, capped off by needing to politely correct someone who misgenders you. When these micro-invalidations occur even within professional settings intended to be safe and supportive, they profoundly undermine trust and reinforce the message that one’s full identity is not welcome or understood.

A Call to Conscience and Action: Weaving Acceptance into Practice

The weight of this evidence demands more than passive acknowledgment. It calls for a fundamental shift in professional consciousness and institutional practice—a deliberate move towards embedding intersectional positivity and acceptance into the very fabric of how we interact with and serve others, particularly the most disenfranchised.

This begins with recognizing the ethical mandate. If the core tenet of helping professions is “do no harm,” then failing to understand and validate the intersecting identities that shape a client’s reality is an ethical failure. It risks perpetuating the very harms—invalidation, marginalization, trauma—that clients may be seeking help to overcome. Moving beyond this requires an active commitment to equity and justice, recognizing that true support necessitates seeing and affirming the whole person.

For individual professionals, this translates into concrete, ongoing practices:

1. Embrace Continuous Learning & Self-Reflection: Actively seek out resources—books, articles, workshops, consultations—on intersectionality, systemic oppression, cultural humility, and the specific experiences of diverse groups relevant to your work. Crucially, engage in rigorous self-reflection to uncover your own biases, assumptions, and areas of privilege. This isn’t a one-time training but a lifelong process.
2. Center Lived Experience: Approach every client, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, with genuine curiosity and humility. Ask open-ended questions: “How do you feel your identity as [X] and [Y] impacts this situation?” or “Are there cultural factors I should be aware of to better support you?” Position the client as the expert on their own life.
3. Practice Active Validation: Go beyond simply listening; explicitly validate the client’s reported experiences. Statements like, “That sounds incredibly difficult,” “It makes sense you would feel that way given what you’ve faced,” or “Thank you for sharing that; I believe you,” can be profoundly affirming, especially for those accustomed to dismissal.
4. Master Inclusive Language: Make the effort to learn and consistently use correct pronouns, chosen names, and respectful, up-to-date terminology for various identities. Ask clients their preferences directly rather than assuming. Ensure all written materials are similarly inclusive.
5. Adapt Your Approach: Recognize that standard interventions or communication styles may not work for everyone. Be flexible and willing to tailor your approach based on cultural background, neurotype (e.g., providing information visually for some ADHD clients, being mindful of sensory sensitivities for autistic clients), trauma history, and other intersectional factors.
6. Cultivate Cultural Humility: Understand that achieving full “cultural competence” is impossible. Instead, strive for cultural humility—a posture of openness, self-awareness, egolessness, and supportive interaction when engaging with diverse individuals.^[24]

These individual efforts, however, must be bolstered by organizational transformation:

1. Embed Equity in Policies: Review all organizational policies—from HR and hiring to client intake and service delivery—through an explicit intersectional lens. Identify and dismantle policies that create barriers or perpetuate bias. Implement robust anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies with clear accountability mechanisms.
2. Prioritize Diverse Representation: Move beyond tokenism. Actively recruit, hire, retain, and promote staff at all levels whose identities reflect the diversity of the community served. Ensure that individuals with lived experience of marginalization are involved in decision-making processes.
3. Mandate Comprehensive Training: Implement ongoing, mandatory training for all staff on intersectionality, anti-oppression, cultural humility, trauma-informed care, LGBTQ+ affirmation, neurodiversity acceptance, and disability justice. Ensure training is high-quality and leads to measurable changes in practice.
4. Create Accessible and Affirming Spaces: Ensure physical environments are accessible (ramps, accessible restrooms, sensory-friendly options where possible). Ensure digital platforms are user-friendly and accessible. Cultivate an organizational culture where diversity is visibly valued and celebrated.
5. Forge Authentic Community Partnerships: Build genuine, reciprocal relationships with organizations led by and serving marginalized communities. Seek their guidance, collaborate on initiatives, and support their work, rather than simply extracting information or clients.
6. Allocate Resources Equitably: Demonstrate commitment by dedicating budget lines specifically to equity initiatives, including training, culturally specific programming, language access, accessibility upgrades, and supporting employee resource groups.

The long-term vision fueled by these actions is one where disenfranchised individuals no longer have to fight exhausting battles simply to be seen and understood. It’s a vision where professional settings become sites of healing and empowerment, not potential sources of further harm. By validating complex identities, we unlock human potential currently suppressed by the demands of masking and navigating discriminatory systems. We foster greater social trust, reduce the costly burden of health disparities, and enrich our communities with the diverse perspectives and talents that intersectionality represents. This isn’t just about improving services; it’s about co-creating a society where belonging isn’t conditional, where the intricate geometry of each person’s identity is recognized as a source of strength, not a liability.

Conclusion: The Unignorable Imperative of Seeing Whole

We began with Maya, poised at the threshold of seeking help, burdened by the fear of being fragmented by the very system meant to support her. Her story, though fictionalized, represents the lived reality of countless individuals navigating a world that too often demands they compartmentalize themselves for the comfort or comprehension of others. This exploration has argued that the framework of intersectionality, born from the need to make visible the compounded discrimination faced by Black women, offers an essential lens for understanding the myriad ways disenfranchisement operates across diverse populations.

Pairing this critical analysis with a commitment to intersectional positivity and acceptance—a radical affirmation of the whole person within their complex reality—emerges not as a soft ideal, but as a sociological necessity. We’ve traced the theoretical underpinnings, demonstrating how recognizing intersecting identities is crucial for building trust, fostering genuine empathy, and challenging ingrained power dynamics. We’ve examined the tangible benefits for individuals and society when this recognition occurs, leading to more effective support and reduced disparities. Conversely, we’ve confronted the stark evidence of harm—the exhausting toll of masking, the systemic failures in diagnosis, the amplification of trauma, the daily erosion of microaggressions—that results from professional and institutional blindness to intersectional realities.

The call to action, therefore, is not merely a suggestion but an urgent imperative. For professionals across fields, and the institutions that shape their practice, embracing intersectional acceptance requires more than awareness; it demands concrete changes in how we learn, interact, design systems, and allocate resources. It requires humility, courage, and a sustained commitment to dismantling our own biases and the inequities embedded within our structures.

Ultimately, the geometry of belonging is complex. Each life is a unique convergence of identities, experiences, privileges, and struggles. To ignore this complexity is to perpetuate harm and inequality. To embrace it, to actively seek to understand and validate the whole person standing before us, is to engage in the vital work of fostering empathy, enabling healing, and contributing to a society where everyone, in their full, intersecting reality, has the opportunity to not just survive, but to thrive. The choice rests with us.

Bibliography

(Separate Page – Example Entries, requires full population based on specific sources used)

• Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000.
• Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 1989, no. 1, article 8, 1989, pp. 139-167.
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed., Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.
• Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M. C., & Mandy, W. “Putting on My Best Normal”: Social Camouflaging in Adults with Autism Spectrum Conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 47, no. 8, 2017, pp. 2519–2534.
• Linehan, Marsha M. DBT Skills Training Manual. 2nd ed., Guilford Press, 2015.
• Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, 1934.
• National Institute of Mental Health. “Mental Health Disparities.” Accessed [Date]. [URL]
• Saleebey, Dennis, editor. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. 6th ed., Pearson, 2013.
• Sue, Derald Wing, et al. “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychologist, vol. 62, no. 4, 2007, pp. 271–286.
• Tervalon, Melanie, and Jann Murray-García. “Cultural Humility versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, vol. 9, no. 2, 1998, pp. 117-125.

Endnotes

(Example format – correlate numbers to superscripts in the text)

1. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 1989, no. 1, article 8, 1989, pp. 139-167.
2. See also: McCall, Leslie. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 30, no. 3, 2005, pp. 1771-1800.
3. Linehan, Marsha M. DBT Skills Training Manual. 2nd ed., Guilford Press, 2015. Radical Acceptance is a core distress tolerance skill.
4. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000.
5. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, 1934. See also Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice-Hall, 1969.
6. For overviews, see Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. NYU Press, 2017; Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Westview Press, 2018; Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. NYU Press, 1996; Davis, Lennard J., editor. The Disability Studies Reader. Routledge, 2017.
7. Saleebey, Dennis, editor. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. 6th ed., Pearson, 2013.
8. See Davis, Mark H. “Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, 1983, pp. 113–126.
9. Horvath, Adam O., et al. “Alliance in Individual Psychotherapy.” Psychotherapy, vol. 48, no. 1, 2011, pp. 9–16.
10. National Institute of Mental Health. “Mental Health Disparities.” Accessed [Date]. [URL]. Also see reports from CDC, WHO on health disparities.
11. Hull, L., et al. “Putting on My Best Normal”: Social Camouflaging in Adults with Autism Spectrum Conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 47, no. 8, 2017, pp. 2519–2534.
12. Cage, Eilidh, et al. “Understanding the Reasons, Contexts and Costs of Camouflaging for Autistic Adults.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 48, no. 8, 2018, pp. 2535–2545.
13. Bargiela, Sarah, et al. “The Experiences of Late-diagnosed Women with Autism Spectrum Conditions: An Investigation of the Female Autism Phenotype.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, vol. 46, no. 10, 2016, pp. 3281–3294.
14. Simon, Valerie, et al. “Prevalence and Correlates of Adult ADHD: A Systematic Review.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, 2009, pp. 89–101. (Note: estimates vary).
15. Lai, Meng-Chuan, and Simon Baron-Cohen. “Identifying the Lost Generation of Adults with Autism Spectrum Conditions.” The Lancet Psychiatry, vol. 2, no. 11, 2015, pp. 1013–1027.
16. See relevant sections in DSM-5-TR on associated features and comorbidity for ADHD and ASD. American Psychiatric Association, 2022.
17. Hoover, David W., and Patricia L. Dworkin. “Complex Trauma in Autistic Adults: A Conceptual Review and Clinical Implications.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, vol. 29, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1–19.
18. See reports from CDC National Center for Health Statistics on maternal mortality.
19. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. National Academies Press (US), 2011.
20. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health. “Mental and Behavioral Health – African Americans.” Accessed [Date]. [URL].
21. James, S. E., et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.
22. Kirmayer, Laurence J. “Rethinking Cultural Competence.” Transcultural Psychiatry, vol. 49, no. 2, 2012, pp. 149–164.
23. Sue, Derald Wing, et al. “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychologist, vol. 62, no. 4, 2007, pp. 271–286.

Tervalon, Melanie, and Jann Murray-García. “Cultural Humility versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, vol. 9, no. 2, 1998, pp. 117-125.