> Identity politics is a term that describes a political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor form exclusive socio-political alliances, moving away from broad-based, coalitional politics to support and follow political movements that share a particular identifying quality with them. Its aim is to support and centre the concerns, agendas, and projects of particular groups, in accord with specific social and political changes. [0]

Identity politics is when your politics stem from your identity. Holding opinions that are atypical of people with your background is the cardinal sin of identity politics, as disunity saps your group of its strength.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

Identity politics simply demands a better future for people belonging to identity X. It doesn't necessarily advocate that people of identity X should have properties A, B, C. This is for a simple reason: You want to attract the maximum number of people belonging to identity X. Thus you have it backwards: The cardinal sin of identity politics is excluding people of identity X by additional property requirements A, B, C.

After all, most people belong to multiple groups - one can be black, and a woman. One can be a jewish gay man, etc.

Now there is one exceptional case in which you will be denounced: If you argue that people of identity X should not have it better. They'll denounce you all the more if you're of identity X; but will still denounce you either way. Most other atypical opinions are welcome..

(again, I'm not advocating for identity politics per se)

I think we're sticking on our interpretations of properties A, B, and C. I and the above poster are using them to refer to views fundamental to the political goals of the identity X. So for example saying "if you don't vote for Biden you're not really Black" is saying if you identify as Black, you must have the property of supporting Biden as presumably he is the best candidate for the Black community.

You appear to be using property to refer to other identities. So someone who identifies as both Black and a woman would thus be a black person with with the property of woman. Of course proponents of identity politics want as many people of their identity on their side as possible, regardless of what else they may identify as, but you have to ask what being on their side means. Just saying X should have it better hides an implicit question: what does it mean for X to have it better? Many proponents of identity politics simply assume that everyone of identity X will agree on what they collectively want, but this is to assume they share the same properties A, B, and C which make them want these things.

I see. I think we agree actually!