I would warrant caution and nuance when considering the effect of IdPol on these things. It's a term that's been abused and bastardized to high heaven, and it's a concept that the right has made ample, productive (for them) use of.

The politics of whiteness, the politics of masculinity, the politics of white masculinity, the politics of Christian conservatism, the politics of white nationalism, of Christian nationalism, of white-Christian nationalism, etc., are all IdPol. These are identity groups that the right has very successfully leaned on and groomed.

If you actually look at the Democrats, the Liberals, or even the NDP, what Identity Politics do they actually spout? What do they say that's such a turn off, with respect to IdPol? It's very little. Instead, what you actually see is them focusing on issues that matter to women, immigrants, and people of colour, but not to the exclusion of others.

But the right has used the fact that they speak of non-white, non-male, non-Christians at all and used it to reinforce the Identity Politics of the blue collar voter.

The aggrivated teenage sitting at the dinner table whining at you about how racist and imperialist the country is is not engaging in IdPol. They're engaging in the process of coming to terms with the fact that the world is not how it has been portrayed to them. But the rural Canadian or American voting against their interest because the party that is going to fuck them or their community over the most has done the work to sure up their identity as white, rural, and working class.

Their politics and support follows their identity, not their interests or policy preferences.

That is Identity Politics. And you're right, it's toxic.

It's just not what you were using the word to mean.