“privilege”-based analyses also tend to over-rely on visible markers of power -- that is, both markers that are literally visible (e.g. skin color, apparent gender, etc.), but also including those markers that have attained some degree of discursive visibility (a set which includes literally visible markers but also, e.g., mental illness, “invisible” disabilities). the problem here is, again, twofold. first, the markers are assumed to be recognized as such and carry the same dis/advantages regardless of context. second, any marker which is not literally visible and/or has not attained discursive visibility (to certain individuals and/or in a certain context) is not considered at all. at best, this leads to all sorts of misunderstandings because the observer simply can’t know every way a person is marginalized just by looking at them. at worst, it leads to violent treatment of populations who fail particular (always ideologically-determined) marker tests -- e.g., trans women who do not conform to a particular standard of womanhood, whether it be genetic, anatomic, social, presentation, etc., and are therefore considered to have some degree of “male privilege”.
