Probably because "unlived experiences" or "unlived realities" require imagination along with sympathy and empathy for other points of view. something most people do and did for much of our existence.

"Lived experiences" assertion is a postmodernist linguistic weaponized tool, designed to push forward moral relativity and narcissism.

“Postmodernity is said to be a culture of fragmentary sensations, eclectic nostalgia, disposable simulacra, and promiscuous superficiality, in which the traditionally valued qualities of depth, coherence, meaning, originality, and authenticity are evacuated or dissolved amid the random swirl of empty signals.” ― Jean Baudrillard

“Whereas modern cynicism brought despair about the ability of the human species to realize laudable ideals, postmodern cynicism doesn't — not because it's optimistic, but because it can't take ideals seriously in the first place. The prevailing attitude is Absurdism. ― Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology

“Postmodernism, the school of "thought" that proclaimed "There are no truths, only interpretations" has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for "conversations" in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.” ― Daniel Dennett

Postmodernism today tries to reject biological differences between sexes, rejects history and psychology and tries to argue that everything is subjected to construct of language, best express in "I identify as...."

...in other words you can have any kind of neurotic personal experience, and define your reality by using language and than turn the whole insanity in a political issue. If someone disagrees you attack them with language, accusing them of any number of phobias. That devastating use of language is the contribution of postmodernism.

By proclaiming there are not truths are relative, expect this one, it is beyond absurd, but like all radical religious propositions its a matter of faith and its the kind of religion that does not tolerate other religions, so we find ourselves in a religious war, at the end of the day.

The moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in a speech at the American conservative think tank Manhattan Institute, criticized the theory by saying:

[In intersectionality] the binary dimensions of oppression are said to be interlocking and overlapping. America is said to be one giant matrix of oppression, and its victims cannot fight their battles separately. They must all come together to fight their common enemy, the group that sits at the top of the pyramid of oppression: the straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied Christian or Jewish or possibly atheist male. This is why a perceived slight against one victim group calls forth protest from all victim groups. Intersectionality is like NATO for social-justice activists.

............

During the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, in his famous speech I have a Dream, American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., said: “I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls.” I agree with that statement fully. And yet looking at what I see today, I can't stop thinking that poor Martin is spinning in his grave.

“...obscurantist feature in social scientists trying to combine pluralism with environmentalism. They are so preoccupied with the role of prejudice in creating hostile environments that they perpetually deny the obvious, that stereotypes are rough generalizations about groups derived from long-term observation. Such generalizations are usually correct in describing group tendencies and in predicting certain collective actions, even if they do not adequately account for differences among individuals. Nonetheless, as Goldberg explains, the self-described pluralist and prominent psychologist Gordon Allport went out of his way in The Nature of Prejudice (1954) to reject stereotypes as factually inaccurate as well as socially harmful. For Allport and a great many other social Scientists, nothing is intuitively correct unless it is politically so.” ― Paul Edward Gottfried, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State

“Racial stereotyping. For Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, the sin of white racism was stereotyping all black people as inferior. It was a prejudice to be sure, but it was predicated on the assumption that all blacks were the same. King objected to stereotyping because he wanted blacks to be treated as individuals and not reduced exclusively to their racial identity (hence the meaning of his famous statement about the content of one's character taking precedence over the color of one's skin).

The postmodern left turns the civil rights model on its head. It embraces racial stereotyping - racial identity by any other name - and reverses it, transforming it into something positive, provided the pecking order of power is kept in place. In the new moral scheme of racial identities, black inferiority is replaced by white culpability, rendering the entire white race, with few exceptions, collectively guilty of racial oppression. The switch is justified through the logic of racial justice, but that does not change the fact that people are being defined by their racial characteristic. Racism is viewed as structural, so it is permissible to use overtly positive discrimination (i.e., affirmative action) to reorder society." ― Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: The New Illiberalism's Assault on Freedom

“The ideological fantasies of this movement [New Left of the 1960s] … were no more than a nonsensical expression of the whims of spoilt middle-class children, and while the extremists among them were virtually indistinguishable from Fascist thugs, the movement did without doubt express a profound crisis of faith in the values that had inspired democratic societies for many decades.… The New Left explosion of academic youth was an aggressive movement born of frustration, which easily created a vocabulary for itself out of Marxist slogans … : liberation, revolution, alienation, etc. Apart from this, its ideology really has little in common with original Marxism. It consists of “revolution” without the working class; hatred of modern technology as such; …the cult of primitive societies … as the source of progress; hatred of education and specialized knowledge.” ― Leszek Kołakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, the Golden Age, the Breakdown

“Originated by the green leading-edge in academia, this aperspectival madness of “no truth” leapt out of the universities, and morphed into an enormous variety of different forms—from direct “no-truth” claims, to rabid egalitarianism, to excessive censoring of free speech and unhampered knowledge acquisition, to extreme political correctness (that forced the best comedians to refuse to perform at colleges any more, since the audiences “lacked all sense of humor”: you’re allowed to laugh at nothing in a “no value is better” world—even though that value itself is held to be better), to far-left political agendas that in effect “equalized poverty,” to egalitarian “no judgment” attitudes that refused to see any “higher” or “better” views at all (even though its own view was judged “higher” and “better” than any other), to modes of entertainment that everywhere eulogized egalitarian atland, to a denial of all growth hierarchies by confusing them with dominator hierarchies (which effectively crushed all routes to actual growth in any systems anywhere), to the media’s sense of egalitarian “fairness” that ended up trying to give equal time to every possible, no matter how factually idiotic, alternative viewpoint (such as Holocaust deniers), to echo chambered social media where “pleasant lies” and “reassuring falsehoods” were the standard currency.” ― Ken Wilber

...........

I am not a religious person myself, but I appreciate those who recognize the underlaying treat to culture and civilization...

“Do you doubt that’s where we are heading? Progressives have every intention of compelling secularists, agnostics, atheists, and people of all faiths to change (progress) by surrendering to the views and demands on antibiblical “gay” marriage, transgender rights, abortion, and many more aberrant and sinful worldly paths. Further, progressives will use a future big government controlled by them to force even Bible-believing Christian pastors to ignore God’s Word to perform homosexual marriages or face jail—or worse.

Do you believe a pro-life Christian church will ever be forced to host an abortion clinic? I believe that will happen once America is under a progressive, big-government rule that defines intolerance as anyone who holds to a biblical view about social issues like abortion and homosexuality. Progressives will use the like-minded judiciary to enforce their radical views about right and wrong. And they won’t stop with abortion and homosexuality. Progressives aim to force their will on all people by using the strong arm of big government to impose all the strictures of climate change, gun control, socialism (redistribution of wealth), and removal of a church’s tax-exempt status.

Then they will take our religious freedom, our liberty to live out our Christian faith in a radically secularized world. Progressives will use politics and big government to attack our rights and values using cultural Marxism that promotes political correctness, gender ideology, and a broad homosexual dogma.”

― LTC Robert L. Maginnis, Progressive Evil: How Radicals Are Redefining America's Rights, Institutions, and Ideals, Making Her Globally Irrelevant for the End Times