I am, at heart, a scientist. Fundamental to the scientific method is the ability of a theory to make predictions based on the explanations that can then be tested. If the theory fails to accurately predict the results of the test then the theory is wrong. A scientist may be able to use the model/theory and understand/explain its limitations, but if the tests disprove the theory then it has to be abandoned.
Pseudo science can often masquerade as science. It will make observations and use these to hypothesise and provide models and explanations. Pseudo science will also make predictions but if the results of the test fail to match the hypothesis then they are explained away, ignored or a new set of complicated explanations are hypothesisd to explain why the anomalies are fully consistent with the theory.
Such is the case with the various branches of the social justice movement and the theories that underpin them. It starts with an observation (Such as societal oppression of women) and then builds a model to explain it. When observations don’t fit the model, the fault lies with the observer or the data or the methodology - never the ideas themselves. Thus, we end up with the idea that trans women lesbians are the most oppressed people on earth. The data simply doesn’t fit this narrative, but it is simply waved away. If all else fails, just blur the very definition of woman so it can’t even be defined. That’s before we even start to shift the definition of ‘ethnic minority’ when the data on that doesn’t support the narrative.
One day we will look back on this the way we look at phlogiston or Lamarck’s theory of acquired characteristics and wonder why anyone ever bought into this.