[jammies]

In theory, I like the idea that everyone is equal before the law, and we should treat people as individuals worthy of respect regardless of what group they self-identify with, are perceived as belong to, or both. Classic liberalism is good.

However, it's inaccurate and just plain myopic to think we owe all progress on human rights to this idea. Identity politics is necessary in many cases because people like generalizations and are mostly incapable of looking beyond group identity when thinking about themselves and others. You can't evolve society based on how people SHOULD think if they were completely rational beings, because they just aren't fully rational.

It's a useful simplification to say "a woman's right to choose" is a women's issue, or that "black lives matter". Creating narratives around a disadvantaged group or members who share the same struggle makes those struggles comprehensible and visceral; narratives built around abstract ideas of universal justice make for near-universal yawns and incomprehension.

Yes, identity politics can lead to injustice and oppression, to the quelling of unpopular opinions and to backlash against a perceived revolutionary transfer of power. It's an imperfect tool for an imperfect world. That flawed tool, though, is preferable to a perfect tool for a perfect world, for we don't live in some Platonic plane of ideas inhabited by philosopher kings - we live on a ball of sh*t and mud surrounded by tribally evolved barely sentient animals. The appeal to logic only works, alas, with the logical.