I think there is an inherent tension between identity-based and individual-based morality (though, somewhat counterintuitively, much less tension between species-based and individual-based morality).

By evoking the language of identity-group morality, I think you implicitly and unnecessarily sacrifice the well-being of individuals.

Issues of race and gender need some attention, but it has never before been that the moral imperative to treat each other well has come from factionalizing into groups and punishing individuals based on the perceived sins of the group, which sounds perilously close to what you're advocating for. Rather, most advances have come from more deeply embracing our common humanity.

In so doing, of course we need to attend to those systematic failures of embrace. But if we do so without a constant eye towards "this was never cause to treat people poorly", I think the prospects are poor at best, and are more likely to provoke conflict and hardship than anything else.