But I already wrote seven long paragraphs explaining what my perspective was and what my goals were--all at the level of ideas not individuality--and you haven't responded to that at all here.

It's very postmodern of you to care about the "who" and "background" as a prerequisite to interpret anything else. But my experience is that this almost always impedes conversation, as it invites deployment of stereotypes and preconceptions instead of engaging with ideas. The loss of specificity in target audience can be far more easily remedied by asking a few targeted questions than can the stereotypes be dismissed. I probably should have gone full Argumentative Penguin here.

However, if it's that important, you might be able to surmise a tiny bit more about my background if you understand the covert references in my profile tag-line. You can cut out bits of them and Google them.

I also reject as at least too simplified your claim that you don't weigh being "correct" fairly highly. You have made multiple arguments not in favor of exposing yourself to diverse perspectives but against certain perspectives (including some of mine, and intersectionality). Why would you adopt all the ceremony and effort of modes of speech and thought whose purpose is to reveal and reject wrong ideas if you cared little about being correct? Additionally, you said: "There is no thinker, no philosophy, no principle, and no doctrine that is safe from my critical gaze." In what sense is it critical if you are not keenly engaging with the correctness of the thinkers, philosophies, etc.?

Anyway, I accept that this conversation is unlikely to be productive from this point on; thank you for engaging as long as you have!