identity is entirely a consequence of socialization, and defined subjectively by the individual (not something that is a negotiation between the way you see yourself, how you act, how others see you etc.) The psychological research (often b.s., but that's another story, and not in this case) is clear that this is not true.

Take the trans issue as an example (trans is the issue today, the implications extend beyond that specifically.) Jane Gender Studies Professor would say biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, etc all are independent, uncorrelated variables of identity dependent on subjective experience, and indoctrinated through societal conditioning.

Obviously, life will tell you that there is an extraordinarily high correlation amongst these things. Not 100%, but maybe 98% of people are heterosexual males or females. The vast majority of homosexual males and lesbians would identify as males or females as well, and dress/act/whatever accordingly. Yet this independent variable view has fully crept into Universities, is starting to creep into k-12 curriculum, and is trying to work its way into law, with the law being phrased in terms of this 'constructionist' philosophy of identity.

One implication of this is it would completely invalidate any claims to a biological element to homosexuality, gender dysphoria, etc., which many people who are homosexual or trans or whatever rely on as justification (bad word, can't think of another) for their identity.
If these elements are mutable, why not send kids away for conversion therapy? What does this due to the way biology, evolutionary psychology, etc, are taught? Who is pushing these views, and are these unelected arbiters truly speaking for the communities they claim to represent (many of whose members don't appreciate these efforts and the ostracizing attention they draw)? Even if the intention is good, what is the evidence this way of thinking, making this the mainstream way we look at identity or codifying it in law, is helpful and not harmful to marginalized groups? Isn't this whole thing entirely fucking false and undeserving of an exalted position in serious Universities? Etc etc.

Def don't doubt you read a lot, and I would not recommend wading into recent philosophy, save your time for good books. But this is just the kind of thing that's going, in one context, but it extends well beyond that. I do think we're in a better position than Canada and Europe with regard to this stuff (esp as it relates to speech), but it's a problem. Not #1 but it's out there as a hot issue people are paying attention to.