Brennan 179 Finally, the timing of the rise in “intersectional thinking” in statelessness is curious. Why did the void in feminist-statelessness research between Lay Lee and Petrozziello arise, punctuated only quite recently by intersectionality? Is it possible to trace this with something that was going on, on a transnational level? Could Petrozziello’s call to adopt a broader interpretation of the relationship between gender and statelessness, and the adoption of intersectional theory by the statelessness sector be related to the recent rise of the far right and the spread of Trumpism? Or, is it simply that as intersectionality became a buzzword in other fields, it organically entered statelessness research and evolved with the exponential growth of the statelessness sector? Identifying these “why now?” links is an investigation worthy of pursuit, and continuous engagement with feminist interpretations of the theory is important to ensure application of intersectionality remains true to its origins.56 6 Conclusion Pausing to reflect on how feminist analyses can be included in statelessness scholarship provides the sector with an opportunity to create solutions that are not homogenous or unintentionally reflective only of a male perspective. To incorporate an understanding of gender and patriarchy as intrinsically intertwined with statelessness, during the formative years of such work, is to avoid the pitfalls of other scholarship that, after centuries, must now “add women and stir”. The statelessness sector’s compartmentalization of gender arguably began with the exclusion of gender differences in the 1954 Convention. Such marginalization has been reflected in statelessness work, for example, through the treatment of gender discriminatory nationality laws as an isolated issue demanding an equal rights-based solution by separate Conventions. Instead, as this paper suggests, gender/power dynamics ought to be treated as an ever-present component of statelessness, embedded in the historically patriarchal structures that create(d) stateless populations—structures which demand critical deconstruction. From a feminist standpoint, treating gender/patriarchal dynamics in isolation and not as a pervasive reality of every aspect of statelessness, could lead to homogenous responses to the issue and may even stagnate progression within the sector. The point of this paper is certainly not to disparage efforts in the statelessness sector thus far. On the contrary, it is to suggest making a concerted effort to add the feminist critique that has been so strikingly absent for more than the past decade, to this important work. To address this, the beginning of this paper outlined the myriad of points in statelessness work where feminist theory and practice can interject, including in deliberations over definitions to LGBTQ experiences of statelessness, and in deconstructing how colonial “othering” plays a role in excluding groups from citizenship. The works of Lay Lee and Petrozziello demonstrated the two most significant applications of feminist-thought to statelessness thus far. Their focus is on the treatment of women in contexts of statelessness and they conduct their analysis by deconstructing historical narratives and state agendas. After all, the purpose of a feminist analysis is not exclusively to illuminate women’s experiences, despite how crucial and often absent that is. Instead, it seeks to analyze and describe the ways in which the patriarchy impacts individuals and communities (in this case stateless populations). Both authors showed how critically deconstructing historical structures can not only help to understand the past but also shape future approaches in statelessness work. Lay Lee’s analysis of the fraternal roots of citizenship reminds us to hold the dismantling of the patriarchy at the core of statelessness work in championing inclusion. Petrozziello’s dissection of gendered migration policies in the Dominican Republic revealed the insidious ways discrimination is inherent in the creation of statelessness. It highlighted how the state can implement discriminatory policies vis-á-vis women’s bodies as a mechanism to prevent undesirable others, in this case men and women of Haitian descent, from diluting Dominican national identity. Finally, recent work within the statelessness sector that engaged with the feminist theory of intersectionality was highlighted. It showed how the sector, especially in recent years, has considered the differing experiences of stateless people based on their gender, ethnicity or minority status. This work signals the positive impact that interlacing feminist thought with statelessness can have on how the sector responds to affected people’s differing needs. As suggested earlier in this paper, the additional value of applying a feminist analysis to statelessness is to further loosen statelessness from its grip on the legal discipline. The need to do so is summarized by 56 To understand how post-black feminist definitions of intersectionality in the social sciences have erased black women as knowledge producers see, N G Alexander-Floyd, ‘Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in the Social Sciences in a Post-Black Feminist Era’ (2012) Feminist Formations 1.