Not sure why people are surprised at a New York Times writer-activist espousing the idea that there's such a thing as being "politically black". Four years ago the Advocate said Peter Thiel wasn't gay since he had the wrong views. It's "strategic essentialism" all the way down.

There's a nice little two-step you can do to basically avoid any disagreement.
(1) Only people with X identity have standing to speak on subject S.
(2) You have X identity if and only if you hold view V on subject S.

There. Now only people who believe V are allowed to speak.

(2) should probably just say "only if" - the "if" is unnecessary and not always true.