Well, as someone who rejects pretty much whole of far-left… I think you’re right with a part of your title. IDPol isn’t wrong. It’s a natural result of tribalism (along with other things). I’d say there’s nothing wrong with that. However, it’s also exploited by many since race has been turned into a business.

Now, all you’re doing is parroting such far-left worldview. You’re confusing and/or misrepresenting a lot of things, I’d argue deliberately, because that’s what far-left does. The issue, for instance, with feminism and those opposing it isn’t female-centerdness of it (in fact, feminism isn’t female-centered solely but also feminist-centered; there’s a reason they heavily dislike conservative women, etc), but the fact that it’s not egalitarian. Feminism is defined by feminist theory, and feminist theory — such as one of approaches you demonstrate here — isn’t about equality based on liberalism, but about “equality” that’s essentially, “social justice,” and social justice is marxian.

So, for example, you see wage gap, “achievement gap,” between two groups, such as men and women. A liberal person comes along, examines all evidence, and would 99% decide that most of it is clearly a result of various factors, including choices, gender differences, etc. Sexism would be a factor considered, but discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal, if it does happen they tend to sue, and thus only one conclusion can be made — that the results are likely natural product of various differences, because men and women simply aren’t the same, and even if they were it would be absurd to suggest the outcome would always be the same, much less across groups as a whole.

But, a feminist comes along, ignores details such as more hours worked (when it comes to wage gap, for instance) along with other things, and decides due to belief in feminist theory (and thus, belief that patriarchy is a thing) that such gaps between men and women are product of… sexism/patriarchy/discrimination against women. Fields where there are more women, or where some women earn more are ignored, because it’s about oppression of women, not men. Since they believe in equality (social justice) that means re-distributing all these until they are “equal,” even regardless of what I’ve already said. Further, they believe women are socialized by patriarchy to be “women,” hence, the whole “woman is not born, but made” (paraphrasing). That’s also ignoring narratives that have existed for decades, made to convince people that’s true regardless of objective truth — because in such marxian approach, the “privileged,” “oppressor,” group has already been decided, as has the “oppressed” group. The only question is where is the evidence, and can feelings such as “I feel discriminated” count as evidence (on which a lot of such things are based on, hell, they even developed “Implicit bias test” to further demonstrate bias that they believe, must exist)?

And, that’s the issue with feminism. Their conclusions are ignorant of reality due to their worldview being heavily based on patriarchy theory, and their conclusions at times are quite ridiculous, such as with gender. To even claim that “gender is a social construct” is absurd given history, and any sort of evidence showing differing genders elsewhere (presuming we’re not talking about things such as two spirit, and others that are equivalent of trans people) would only demonstrate that social conditioning is possible, and even that’s a question given racial differences.

Further, another issue with feminism is that it ignores men and isn’t about “equality,” but equal outcome and even that’s doubtful at times. The same issue is present when it comes to race, sexuality, and all other “oppression,” it’s not about equality — egalitarianism, but “social justice” equality, and the two are vastly different. You’re also doing the same thing they are.

For instance, I can cite affirmative action and diversity as two things that are anti-male, anti-white, and result in discrimination against both, and at times even asians; actual policies that exist in many companies. Can you do the same? Any policy at all that contributes, say, to wage gap, achievements gaps that is deliberately directed — openly so — against women, or blacks (or better said, benefits others, deliberately)? That exists today? I’d say no. And I’m not asking to cite “evidence” of discrimination, that’ll always happen at individual level, like it happens against men, but actual policies that are directed against women/blacks, so we can say that’s bad and do away with it, ’cause I’d support it.

For the record, I’d even say there’s nothing wrong with being pro-women, pro-men, pro-asian, etc, I see no issue with it, but this goes way beyond it — it’s marxian nonsense intended to subvert society, and ignores reality.

With all of that said, the right does use identity politics. But only acceptable identity politics — that of race of blacks, asians, latinos, not of whites, Europeans, etc. Even “men’s rights” isn’t quite popular . You won’t find such conferences by right-wingers (parties), but you’ll find for women.

Those on the left you mention are actually right, but that’s maybe because I agree somewhat with marxists, and less with… well, adaptation of marxism to “identities,” and the… I’m not even sure how to refer to the mess that this is.

Also, race isn’t a social construct. Just like sex isn’t, etc. I know it sounds nice to you, or you look at the way it’s been used but that doesn’t make race a social construct, just the definition of it. Race is very much real, and it’d be absurd to even suggest it isn’t just like it’d be absurd to suggest sex isn’t real, albeit the latter brings more differences.

I agree with your last point somewhat. But, what you’re selling is anti-white and anti-male (etc) which I wish I could say I was surprised. Satisfied with my comment? I highly doubt so, and I have no doubt you’ll double down :)