Carmelo -- this is a very thoughtful piece, and I have a few observations to add.

I'm not sure that affirmative action is the best example of "identity politics" for the following reasons: affirmative action, in its true/intended form, is supposed to be about considering diverse traits amongst highly-qualified applicants so that the overall workplace or educational climate will be strengthened. Opponents of affirmative action often mischaracterize it as "tokenism" or "a quota system." Tokenism/quotas would only be relevant if an applicant's diverse attributes literally trump any sufficient qualifications -- then, it is no longer truly affirmative action (even if those who run the program/policy still insist upon defining it as such).

So, true affirmative action isn't based entirely on "identity politics" -- tokenism or social quotas *ARE* based on a toxic philosophy of "identity politics."

Also, we should consider whether people are wielding the term "identity politics" with a nefarious agenda or as a way to provoke constructive thoughts. It can be wielded in either manner...sort of like the term "political correctness" can. A given term might become so malleable that it's used for either inclusion or exclusion, depending on the motives of the wielder...and I fear that the term "identity politics" is headed in that direction.

Finally, the most egregious (mis)use of so-called "identity politics" is when it's used to weaponize The Association Fallacy against others. What I mean by this is when people say, "Oh, because YOU aren't a member of THIS GROUP, you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS commenting on this subject matter in any way, shape, or form -- oh, unless you happen to agree with *MY* perspective on it, that is."

Very dangerous stuff.