This part I agree with in the larger picture of making society more inclusive. I personally don't believe that creating huge numbers of sub sections makes us more inclusive, identity politics does not work. But on the reverse do we have a right to upset people who want to identify as what they choose? Its a fine line
Identity politics has been around for ages even though the term wasn't used.
It just used to be that white, male and cis people were the identities that were mostly being politically promoted. Others were marginalised, but for some reason that's not seen as "identity politics".
To me inclusion means including people that are different, accepting that there are sections or groups of people that are different in various ways. I don't believe that there are many groups that are being created, rather groups that have existed for a long time that finally are getting recognised and, to a greater extent, included.
There is a need for identity politics because we're quite a long way from true inclusion and equality, there's a need to fight for the rights of marginalised people.
Now, there are ways identity politics goes wrong, poor strategy decisions, people that take things too far. More often than that I feel that the people that criticise "identity politics" fail to offer up better solutions. And even more often than that calls for inclusiveness and equality are faced by reactionary and even downright bigotry.
I see the latter as identity politics too. Though most people I hear criticise identity politics don't include that in their criticism.
"Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of my heterosexual marriage." Just as an example. Isn't that identity politics? For some reason though identity politics is seen as an issue mostly with the left.
