I don't actually disagree with much of what you said there - and I agree that identity politics isn't enough on its own to get to an understanding of the truth. Those who think it is are missing something important. But I do think it's a valid part of the conversation. I don't see identity politics as being about objective truth, it's more about how we discuss questions of truth - a matter of recognising that some people face more discrimination than others, and we should recognise it - more a matter of tone if you like. And of course there'll be people who fall outside the model, but that doesn't invalidate the model, it just means the model needs some more detail. To give you an example, I DO notice that some men tend to get interrupted more than others - they tend to be neurodivergent, or nervous, or what have you, and I do my best to compensate for that too. To me what peopel tend to call identity politics is just recognition of the fact that a conversation doesn't happen in isolation, it happens in a context of power, and responding to that context in a balancing way (rather than an exploitative way) tends to result in a more productive conversation.