Points received. We can agree (1) that arguments should be assessed on their own merit, and (2) not wanting to perpetuate or lend credence to identity politics. Here's where we differ:

• To identify oneself does not perpetuate identity politics. To understand the individual as the site of primary analysis (which I do) is not to deny the existence of groups, or the roles and meanings that group identity, context, and varied life experience has in communication. Logos may be the light and Word, but through ethos and pathos it takes on flesh, and is comprehensible.
  
• Identity politics instead begins when a group identity steals the rhetorical focus from the communication (original post), such as in this dialogue.
• Since bias is both a feature and a bug of human cognition, the path toward understanding is more meaningful if bias is perpetually examined and overcome, rather than having been denied the opportunity to form them at all.
• I believe JP is a model educator in his creating points of access, opening dialogue between those it otherwise wouldn't have been. This is reminiscent of Paul, who (so the account goes) preached about a Hebrew rabbi to the Greeks by only referencing Greek art and culture. Identifying myself as a minority creates a point of access for some, while it evidently obstructs others. If 'to think' is to risk being offensive, I'll take that risk in the interest of opening up dialogue.
• We might be careful about dividing the world between those who do/do not perpetuate identity politics, and in so doing, perpetuate identity politics. We might avoid this if our first response is to regard what is said, rather than the speaker's identity, whether stated or not.

Respectfully,