for clarity
>>3853 are my points
But the basis of anti-idpol comes out of the olden days of 8chan back whenever we were neigh-always fighting with /pol/ retards and came out of oldBO's attempts at a sort of vanguardist modding system. the foundations of anti-idpol was largely pragmatic and was done as a way to both erase a lot of the /pol/ spam about muh gays and trannies but also to form a more cohesive basis for what qualified as "leftist" within the context of our non-sectarian leftism.
Anti idpol as a rule was the general statement that there should be no mistake that the proletariat should not be excluded from leftist organization and action on the basis of their personal identity while at the same time guaranteeing them that they would be a part of the liberational project of socialism - just not as the central basis of it.
to tl;dr it, all idpols were allowed to be a part of the project and they were all guaranteed liberation from the capitalist structure as all of the proletariat are, meaning the end of material and social discrimination.
this would mean that any construction of a state which did not have commitment to this form of liberation, be it immediate or more reformist, could not really be considered a "left" project because it did not seek emancipation for the proletariat as a whole. it could still be supported critically despite of this, of course.
that is the what, why, and how of what the anti-idpol rule constitutes from my POV as a longtime /leftypol/ member. often I find it insufficient and stifling because it is also used to block "productive" discussions of idpol, back in the day more justifiable because it just invites /pol/ retards but now that we are largely decoupled from /pol/ it may be worthwhile to consider having more productive threads about what having gay or trans or ethnic identities means. however, we should never drop the hard line against reactionary idpol because it is betraying our fellow proles to opportunists, chauvinists, and more often than not probably CIA agents.