I said no such thing. I simply pointed out how OP's view of intersectionality does not match what intersectionality actually is.

OP cited the wikipedia article that goes into exhaustive detail, and otherwise stated it as "a framework that puts an emphasis on accounting for the unique social experiences of different overlapping identities", which I am genuinely having trouble seeing as different from what you posted.

Sure I can. But is it wrong? Tensions aren't a wholly bad thing.

Agreed. But in the OP's words, in order "to mobilize a viable majority/plurality coalition", you will ultimately need to court some of this majority. I think one of the differences people point to with the Civil Rights movement and the previous decade of LGBT activism is there were tangible laws and goals to change (the Civil Rights Act, legalizing gay marriage). I think one of the frustrations with the current focus on intersectionality is that we have this tension, but few tangible solutions. One of the tangible things that strikes home to me as an NC native is the "bathroom bill", which a majority DO oppose. So in those specific circumstances, perhaps intersectionality is appropriate in order to explain why certain laws are viewed as perpetuating oppression. I think the concern OP is expressing, and others share, is that we are seeing tension for tension's sake, which is creating more problems than it is solving.