Collins identifies six important issues that frame transversal politics and its 'potential effectiveness'. The first concerns a requirement for 'both/and thinking', that is, to recognize individual and group multiple identities and positioning, and thus reject rigid and static either/or thinking that regards individuals or groups as either oppressors or oppressed, either woman or black, either men or members of a subordinated group, and so on. Individuals and groups occupy multiple positions – they may be oppressors in some settings and oppressed in others. For example, Collins points out that 'as a historically identifiable population U.S. Black women are simultaneously privileged and penalized' within a global matrix of domination (p. 266). The second issue suggests that groups are historically constructed and much more 'fluid' than 'fixed, unchanging, and with clear-cut boundaries' (p. 265). There are bonds, identifications and overlaps across group boundaries, as well as internal boundaries and differences within a group. The third is the importance of internal dialogues and critical self-reflection, which leads on to the fourth issue – the relationality of group history. Groups are interdependent as they are constituted and defined in relation to each other. Thus, each group or individual should be aware of and recognize its own part and responsibility in shaping and maintaining domination and social injustice. This recognition leads to the fifth issue: non-equivalency. Being interdependent does not mean that groups are equivalent in regard to power, resources or experiences. However, because of the complexity of the relationships between domination and resistance, even in cases where there is a big gap between groups' positions, coalitions may be necessary around some issues but not others. Finally, transversal politics requires recognition of the dynamic nature of coalitions as they can 'ebb and flow based on the perceived saliency of issues to group members'. For instance, in a specific context one group can regard race as the most salient, while for another it might be class, for a third gender, and so on (pp. 264–268).