Link back to commentA very interesting topic. I am glad to see that a discussion of the concept of identity politics is included, and that the Stanford encyclopaedia was used. However, I suggest the more simpler and broader definition than the one cited, which was:
"The laden phrase “identity politics” has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestos, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination"
I suggest this as I think this a more charitable understanding of Identity politics, and if you wish to demonstrate that Identity politics is repungnant not just in it's current practice, but in principle, then it ought to be done by its most charitable and broad understanding of the concept.