The problem with this is that when you think of identity politics you think of the extreme end. Which is the main point of my original post. People equate identity politics with extremism -- my argument is that identity politics is actually at the core of all politics. You can utilize extreme rhetoric arguing any point. But if all you see is the extreme then well.. I can't help you.
If you are indeed a part of a more moderate and nuanced politics, then I think you could help by calling out the extremists and speaking up for principles. Where people "on your side" are showing tacit approval to extremists, you should call them out.
If you can point out where the nuanced and more moderate politics are put forward from your side, then also point that out. From where I am sitting, it seems like the extreme part of "idpol" is the loudest and seemingly the most representative part.
I think everyone who isn't very interested in this matter is only seeing the extreme. At least that's all that seems to reach me. Maybe the identity politics people could do a better job of showing their reasonable side.
The problem is that these people aren't arguing for fair treatment. They are arguing for unfair treatment, but just unfair treatment that now favors them, and this treatment is determined by group identity (i.e. men=bad so you can hate any man).
If that's the approach, then to me it reveals that any rhetoric about fair treatment is just that, rhetoric, and what is really wanted is power.