If you're skeptical of identitarian deference you might enjoy Bruening's previous article on the matter. http://mattbruenig.com/2013/02/26/what-does-identitarian-def.../ Personally I think identitarian deference is generally a good thing. The problem with avoiding it is that you end up listening to people who have no subjective experience with the matter. People who don't belong to an oppressed group, but still attempt to speak for them, are essentially speculating or working from hearsay rather than from the evidence of experience. This can conceal actual oppressions that are not obvious to those who don't directly deal with them, or even whitewash the struggle into something more palatable to the alien group with which the speaker identifies. This isn't really a problem. Ideas that originate outside the identitarian group still receive exposure and discussion within the group, and will be adopted and expanded upon if they are good ideas. Identitarian deference is not about who can develop "thoughtful contributions", but rather about the consent of the people to whom those ideas apply. In any case, I believe identitarian politics are only useful so far as analyzing and disarming the conflicts and oppressions that are the side-effects of capitalism. All of these conflicts come back to false consciousness instigated by class conflict.De facto legitimacy risks mindless trumping of thoughtful contributions made by non-members.