Sure. You're making the argument for economic betterment here and that's where our views converge. Equality of opportunity means finding the people who are a few laps behind everyone else when the race starts and letting them run a few first. That's what I'd call classic socialism.

What identity politics does is takes a whole characteristic and says, these people MUST be three laps behind because they are X. Therefore we must give all the X people in this group an extra headstart - and we will look at no other factors other than X, and if we do we'll call it 'intersectionality' but downplay every other factor but X. Identity politics has a tendency to look at people Y, and say... these people in Y share some (but not all) of the characteristics of the front runners therefore they shouldn't be allowed a headstart at all. And then it wonders why some of those in the Y group moves to the political right.

Now imagine that happening in every conceivable lane with every immutable characteristic all jostling to get their extra lap (whether they need it or not) - and what you have is identity politics. That is what is dividing the left wing and will ensure a continued sweep of right wing governments for the next ten years so it. It is these synthetic leftists arguments which have taken a simplistic and measurable model of disadvantage (how much money do you have) and turned into an ideological bun fight about a myriad of feelings about disadvantage.

Equal opportunity is a reality but it won't be ushered in by the synthetic left - as always I firmly believe we need to stick to the economic model and build a society around that. Tolerance, compassion and a more liberal population will stem from better economic conditions, greater social mixing and healtcare/childcare for disadvantaged groups. You can't force a better world using faux-liberal left policies allowing people to cherry pick how many laps headstart they feel they should have.