You're defining identity politics in a way that's so broad that it encompasses all politics and some non-politics (corporate brand loyalty). That makes it a non-useful phrase. Generally it's useful to define phrases in ways that exclude a lot of interpretations.
And again I tell you that this definition is fake. It's not the way these groups think about this at all. And more over it's fake in a deliberate way, designed to fool YOU, as a member of your particular libertarian subculture, into discounting the political desires of other demographics by leveraging YOUR trust in your own group due to "primordial tribal identification".
Seriously: I know you think that your desires are "real" and these other groups are just "identity politics". You're wrong. All desires are real.
What would you call it when every Republican since Sara Palin has talked about "real American folks", in contrast with "godless coastal elites"?
It's true that the latter is more specific. I don't see how that makes it better.
[1] See? Identity politics at work. You don't seriously think no one targets libertarians via the same tricks, do you? You're literally falling for one in this very thread by discounting the discourse of "centrist political scientists" in favor of your in-group's spin. So when your in-group tells you to vote for someone, who are you going to believe? Them or the crazy centrists and their warped understanding of the evils of "identity politics?"
Using words like "quantum," "AI," and "blockchain" as examples, in all of those cases you have one community with a meaningful definition and another community with a meaningless definition. In deciding which definition is "better" one would typically go with the way it's defined in the community that uses it to mean something.
Which, to me, is a very apt statement in context. For example, when dealing with someone trying to dismiss an important point without consideration by labeling it with his own subculture's spun definition.
To wit: online libertarians screaming about how terrible identity politics is as a way to disparage their political enemies are absolutely practicing identity politics.
But haven't you heard? Anyone who places value on liberty is a libertarian, anyone who says something in today's hyper-connected age is "online" (because their ideas could make it to the internet, even if they didn't put them there themselves), and screaming is indistinguishable from speech because it exists on the same continuum. Furthermore, as you point out, identity politics is politics, but in an even deeper sense, politics can be anything. Furthermore, any claim can be construed as disparaging depending on the values of the listener, and "political enemies," if you think about it, really extends to anyone who is not yourself - because no two people believe exactly the same things. So, now that we realize the true meanings of all the words used, we are left with the sentence:
>Anyone speaking against anything are practicing activities.
You're taking a very short-term view of "identity politics". When the US was founded under the phrase "all men created equal", it was with the clear understanding that "men" meant white landowners, and specifically not women. This was marked progress from previous royalty-based governments where "god" selected some fantastically rich white men to rule. Identity politics are as old as history itself. Only the name is new.
I'd call it an assumption more than a recognition, and take it from there.
Every person is different from any other and each deserves to be judged individually.
That's not what it means. That sounds like a caricature of it you read in libertarian media. "Politics" in its modern meaning is about getting votes, not telling people what to think.
Identity politics is the recognition that people of similar backgrounds tend to have similar political desires, coupled with the fact that people tend to "trust" politicians who have supported those needs in the past. And that's all it means.
So white christians vote republican because of a long history of opposition to abortion rights, black votes have gone to democrats ever since the Civil Rights Act passed, etc... Not everyone, but enough that it makes sense as political strategy to court specific groups via these affiliations.
And they're mutable over time. We didn't used to think of the divide between college-educated whites and non-college whites until the Trump campaign was able to exploit that divide. Men/women is getting larger now too, etc...