I'm not looking for equal outcomes. I'm looking to eliminate barriers altogether, which isn't immediately possible in most cases. That means I'm looking for equitability not equality in the interim. In any case, I think this completely misses the point that post-modernism isn't something that you create or happens. It's something that exists or has always existed. It's a theory that describes how things are. A massive oversimplification of post-modernism is that there are multiple perspectives on things and how those things appear depends on where you're coming from. Think of the young lady-old hag picture or the duck and bunny picture. That's not something that's created. It's just a way of conceptualizing how things are.
Edit to add: Taking what I said above, that makes the whole "anti-postmodernist" thing a bit bizarre. As bizarre as say being "anti-gravity." That's great that you don't believe in gravity but do you have a better explanation that's testable and observable in a scientifically rigorous way? But then again, what more can you expect from a crowd who "doesn't believe" in "evolution" because it's "just a theory."
What I mean by a "postmodernist" is someone who believes the theory and uses those concepts in how they frame the world in their own minds, and then uses these concepts to form policy and hiring practices etc. ie: By breaking people down into different groups, who all have different levels of power and influence and perspectives, and applying different values to different groups based on perceived current or historical oppressed status, and treating people differently based on their perceived level of power based on their group status.
An anti-post-modernist is somebody who doesn't believe in the validity of this theoretical framework, and/or doesn't believe in its use for policy, at least not consciously, preferring the status quo, which naturally benefits groups who have more power, like men or white people or straight or rich people. Peterson doesn't seem to have a very good view of postmodernism, which I disagree with him on since I find the theory brilliant (yes, we're simplifying the theory, it can be broad and vague), for me it's all about how far you take it.
Postmodernism isn't quite the same as gravity. Gravity is a scientific phenomenon you can prove in a lab with specific physical laws. Postmodernism is a theoretical framework created by the human mind as a lens to view and explain the social world, no different than any other philosophical theory, which is not hard science, but social science and not proven by hard maths and physics.
I think most people's problem on the left with Peterson's take on postmodernism is that he doesn't like how much it has dominated thought in the humanities in academics and by extension greater society, while many on the progressive left disagree with him. Cyber you're an academic university type and seem to agree with much of the recent postmodern critical theory coming out of the universities, things like microaggressions and whatnot. So I understand why you don't agree with Peterson. You guys are on 2 opposing sides of the culture war, and it's become a very bitter war. I find myself kind of in the middle, I can empathize with both sides, and don't want to be too extreme either way. I style myself a 90's or 2000's leftist on a lot of things, which is more a Bill Maher liberal type thinking and not so much 2021 woke. Trouble is if you're me or Bill Maher you seemed pretty progressive left-wing in 2002, but now those same thoughts seem conservative in comparison to 2021 progressiveness.