This is the definition of identity politics taken from google
“a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.”
For those of you who know what identity politics is, do you think this is a good definition or could you explain it better?
What do you think of identity politics?
For those who don’t know what it is, how do you interpret that definition?
I thought this was about identity crises, lol.
I’m going to @Discussions here because I’d like to hear what you think 
I don’t know what identity politics are lmaoo but based on the definition, it sounds like when you’ve got, for example, two political parties, and then a bunch of people let’s say Christians, decide to form their own political party based on their beliefs and political opinions?
And then it says exclusive, so maybe the Christian political party is like really geared to Christians and only Christians
idk
I didn’t know what that is but from what you said I got that it’s a group of racist/sexist/homophobic etc etc people that form a political party and exclude other people. Not sure
Tbh, I personally think that most politics would be considered identity politics. I mean, most rich people vote based on their social background in that they choose to vote for people who will secure their social class stays on top. You know, rich people staying rich. Working class people tend to vote in a way that advantages them as members of the working class, whether they’re aware of it or not. Religious people are naturally influenced by their religion. White supremacy voting is a form of identity politics. Etc etc. People just don’t realise they’re partaking in identity politics, haha
Do not many people have an opinion on identity politics, @Discussions & @LGBTCommunity?
I think identity politics is largely unavoidable, the problems only really arise when people think that simply because somebody is part of their “group” that means their opinion is automatically correct and the only valid opinion.
If I take the LGBTQ+ community for example, there can be people in that group who are homophobic and therefore have homophobic opinions or opinions that stem from homophobia that can be more subtle, there’s also issues within that group like bi exclusion and transphobia, yet there would be some people who genuinely think that simply identifying as gay gives you a far more valid opinion on how gay people should be treated even if what they’ve said is actively dangerous and harmful.
I understand that minorities have a shared experience in many ways and therefore should never be left out of conversations about how they should be treated in any situation. However, if a person who isn’t part of that group is educated on the matter I see no reason why they shouldn’t join in that conversation.
It’s not progressive to gatekeep and refuse to listen to somebody based on whether or not they are part of your group instead of whether or not their opinion holds weight and can be backed up. You should be easily able to debate against bigoted opinions because they’re based on completely illogical reasoning. Instead of just saying “well you’re not (insert thing) so your opinion isn’t valid”
If you feel like somebody isn’t understanding your experience that’s a different thing, if your evidence is purely anecdotal you need to accept that but that doesn’t make your experience invalid, facts can even back you up most of the time so you really don’t need to resort to just telling people they aren’t in your group so therefore they can’t discuss it with you.
The issue we have now is that people with bigotted opinions are refusing to listen to people without bigotted opinions and the people without bigotted opinions are refusing to listen to each other. It ties in with identity politics.
I actually feel like I can explain this better with an actual example (I’m keeping it simple):
In a debate about trans people, a trans person misgenders another trans person they’re debating with because they disagree with them, they tell you they can do this because they are trans.
Misgendering people isn’t okay no matter who you are and the vast majority of people would agree with this.
Next example:
In a debate with a cis person (pretend you’re also cis in this situation) they’re losing the debate, so they resort to saying “well trans people don’t need you to speak for them”
You can see how both examples are extremely counter productive and not based on any real logic. They’re both used in a situation where the person resorting to calling out the identity of their opponent is losing.
It’s interesting how that kind of thing can be flipped around.
In the first situation, I’ve already said that being trans doesn’t give you the right to misgender anyone. But I’m going to be specific and say Blaire White is a bad example of identity politics but a great example of identity politics gone wrong. She’s been brought into discussions before about how she throws other trans people under the bus to make her look like “one of the good ones” in they eyes of people who think she shouldn’t exist. She’s an example of, despite being trans, also being transphobic.
This does not mean that all trans people cannot speak up on trans related things, contrapoints does a great job of that as one example. No, this isn’t me saying “right wing trans people aren’t valid” they just make no logical sense. When you actually watch a right wing person in a debate, most of their views/arguments fall apart on themselves it doesn’t matter what their identity is. But throw being trans and right wing into the mix, I can’t virtually comprehend how self destructive that is. I probably never will, I don’t have to. I can just debate with logic.
In the second example, this is one I often come across with my family. Now, if someone were to message me with racism or homophobia etc, I’d probably just block them. But with my family, I live with them, while not everything they say refers to an aspect of my identity, it still makes me super uncomfortable because I’ve seen how their worlds and beliefs affect people in real life. The lack of empathy disturbs me, so I call it out. Which is when I’m told not to speak for them.
Even though I’m usually only saying educational things that helped me understand issues in the hope I can help them understand. They obviously see this as patronising. So I can’t win, it’s either be nice and accused of patronising them or be rude and called aggressive. Another thing I hate is civility politics 
. Because none of that is relavent to the actual points I’m making and is just a way to shut me up.
So to conclude, when identity politics is used because someone is losing an argument and wants to shut up their opponent, this is when I take issue with it. Most people will actually agree that it’s dumb and arguments should be argued based on the argument not on the person you’re arguing with.
Lol
Btw due to recent events with abortion stuff I’d like to clarify that despite my issues with identity politics I don’t think a bunch of men should be deciding women’s bodily rights issues especially not men who argue with feelings and ignore everything women say. This is what I meant when I said people issues affect should never ever be left out of conversations regarding their rights.