In my opinion, the issue with the mainstream discussion of idpol is that it has solely become the domain of what could be considered the “middle class”: labor aristocrats, self-employed small business owners and landlords, with the second group being the most vocal in this discussion through their control of popular media and their issues coloring the whole discussion of idpol, meaning that idpol itself has a class character. You can see this with the way these issues are discussed, with the biggest issues not being any real material issues that have an effect on reality but rather non-issues like not enough minority representation in media in the eyes of liberals, more than enough minority representation in media in the eyes of conservatives, not enough minority CEO, politicians, etc. and so on.
However, just as popular idpol adopts the class character of the petit bourgeoisie, the class well-equipped to voice their issues in the public consciousness and influence it, there is a more hidden form of idpol that has historically been in the domain of the working class and the lower strata of the petit bourgeoisie, a form of identity politics which concerns the real material needs of these working class identity groups and as such adopts the class character of this class. You can see this well in some of the identity issues that its primary proponents are working class and lower middle class: police brutality, prison slavery, the destitution and poverty of primarily the black, Hispanic and then white working class, wage disparity between the sexes, access to abortion, access to proper healthcare for LGBT people and so on. These issues enter the public consciousness from time to time to remind people that the working class exists and has real issues, but are then often ignored or put on a secondary pedestal in relation to the issues of the petit bourgeoisie.
As such I find that ignoring identity issues altogether is not the proper way forward as a lot of these issues are genuinely real, material issues that affect different groups of the working class, but just as petit bourgeois idpol adopts the class character of the petit bourgeoisie, so too does working class idpol adopt the class character of the worker. So, I think that it is better to appeal to the real issues of different working class groups and in the end try to “proletarianize” their struggles, to appeal to their issues on proper class lines, so that the unity of the entire working class could be achieved and all these different working identity groups could wage unified class struggle based on shared class opression. This has been the strategy of all serious socialist organizers in history and I think it should be the strategy of the current left if it ever wants to move forward.