Feminist critique of democracy leads to the articulation of numerous proposals to change its institutional mechanisms to be more inclusive and emancipatory. Increasing importance is attributed not only to quantitative representation but also to the quality of public debate. In the article, we demonstrate how recent efforts to transcend the distinction between descriptive and substantive representation of women can face criticism from the perspective of intersectional theory. By analyzing the example of the ‘second-generation feminist institutional design,’ a model proposed by Karen Celis and Sarah Childs, we assess the compatibility of these ideas with deliberative theory and its practice. Ultimately, we circle back to the challenge posed by the intersectional approach to power and equality, aiming to delineate the boundaries of the emancipatory and inclusive potential of deliberative practices. The critique presented by intersectionality under- scores that while such innovations might enhance equality in certain aspects, their inherent design will inadvertently perpetuate inequalities in other domains.