I view their politics as a meme prion: perhaps there’s some reasonable interpretation — as you’ve outlined here — but that’s not what they’re arguing. For exam

I view their politics as a meme prion: perhaps there’s some reasonable interpretation — as you’ve outlined here — but that’s not what they’re arguing. For example, despite saying that they’re staunchly against bigotry, they’re defining commonality by race and sex — rather than common circumstance. That’s inherently toxic because it foments the very bigotry they (pretend to) decry: look at their proud anti-Asian racism at Harvard, using 1950s style arguments there’s “too many Asians”. They absolutely detest the people who when viewing things through the lens of individualism, conclude that they should form partnerships with people that have aligned values, principles, and goals. After all, they’d have to admit their beliefs were a return to racial and sexual essentialism to have that realization — and they’re Good People (TM) who would never do such a thing. One of the most important choices an individual makes is who to have “on your team” — and their entire world view is built on assigning those roles based on protected class. I don’t think your attempt to “assuage their fears” will be met with anything but rabid anger — because we already did that and it already produced superior results. They’ve intentionally destroyed that system, as anathema.