You're actually attempting to articulate an idea with some degree of innocence so I'll respond.
>Is identity a technology
It depends what you mean by identity and what you mean by technology; under normative meanings the answer is definitively No. It's unclear exactly why it is you need to designate Identity as a technology in order to further your position, "idpol bad."
From the outset, you seem to be operating under the assumption that Identity and Technology are external things to---what exactly? "Humanity" in the abstract sense, but abstracted to the extent as to become meaningless. Technology as such is not an external object to what makes up "humanity". The creation and use of technology is, in an important sense, a specific quality of humanity. This is to say, it is impossible to think of a human being without always already presupposing the creation and use of technology. It's intimately involved with what a human being is, and therefore is problematic to articulate its essence as something separate from the human being as such.
What's also abstract is what you mean by "technological system." Do you mean a system that incorporates, or is based upon, the dynamics of technology (and what technologies?), or do you instead mean the general sense of a "rationalized order or mechanics"; if the latter, then that is not a technological system.
You claim that identities are thrust upon the human individual by societal, cultural, and material circumstances. This is somewhat true, but not to the extent that you imagine it is. The specific circumstances that result in any particular identity are not "thrust" upon the human individual in the sense they are an externalized force that somehow intervenes with the human individual, whose natural state is somehow without identity; instead the individual's identity is brought about by existing within those circumstances. The identity is a continuous byproduct of the dynamics the individual has within its particular and spontaneous circumstances across time and personal growth.
Your view of this seems to come from the conflation of "identity" with "identity politics", which are two very different things, to say the least. You take a quasi-teleological view that identity politics exists as a necessary result of the existence of identity proper, but this is also not the case. Identity Politics itself is a result of the contradictions within Neoliberal Capitalism, particularly the basic attempted (and impossible) reconciliation between civil society and the state, playing out within the realm of culture. If you were a Marxist, OP, you would know that this basic contradiction (which was discovered by Hegel) is the foundation upon which all Marxist thought is founded.
The last thing that you're misled by, OP, is the right-wing vulgarization of what is meant by "accelerationism." The right takes it as just a synonym for "intensify", which is just simply not the case at all.