Wondering if one of the reasons sex/gender/race/&c. equality doesn't get as much traction in the middle because so many activists talk about it within a zero-sum framework.
For example, the idea I came across earlier today that men can't be feminists because they benefit from male privilege so lack the ability to genuinely desire women's empowerment. Leaving aside the issue of whether humans are capable of giving up a benefit for the good of others, it assumes empowering someone necessarily requires someone else losing out.
Now, there might be some situations where that is true: if I have a sandwich and you don't, sharing that sandwich between us in any way requires that I lose some sandwich. However, many situations aren't a "there is a small finite number of sandwiches" situation: the idea of hiring practices meaning someone has to lose out on a job is an illusion caused by a belief (i.e. not a physical law) that money should come from work - after all, if benefits were treated as a neutral and sufficient way to be paid, mothers &c. wouldn't be driven into seeking work and some "average" people in work wouldn't seek it, so the number of people seeking jobs would reduce; and the worth of money itself is an illusion caused by the belief we shouldn't just share everything without expecting "fair" recompense.
The idea of work as a double illusion, a mirage seen in a fun-house mirror, is an example not a solution: building a better world requires more complex assessment than simply declaring a specific version of anarchy is perfect. But accepting the premise that giving some groups more than they have requires taking things away from white, cis men is alienating the people who, by the activists own words, have the most power; which might be as daft a strategy for gaining popular support and change as it seems.
I think the reason the equality issue is ignored by those in the middle is they are busy getting on with life. Traditional roles of male and female are set as they have been since Adam and Eve. The women have the envious job of teaching their children to be God fearing people or at the least to be socially functional in the world of the majority. The men earn the resources to make that possible. Of course, then the lines blur over the centuries between the two, but the basic tenants still hold.
They don't pay much attention to LGBT, bigotry, or gender disparities until forced too. The forcing comes in the form of protests, law suits, and defamatory speech. Some of it is esoteric and some if it is tangible. The idea of someone has to give up something to bring about equality goes against the grain for most that have to be forced to think about it or actually do it.
The protest may shut down the freeway for a while, and a person has to give up some time at home because they can't get there. No big deal, yet if they can't get to the school play starring little darling or make it to the recreation center to sign up Bobby and Susy for Little League then it becomes a bit more serious. Hopefully, not to the point of someone getting run over. When it is over, it's back to life as usual - almost. There is a lingering resentment that lies as an ember in the soul waiting to be feed fuel and flare up. That flare could come in the form of voting no on an LGBT initiative giving same sex couples maternity leave for adopting a baby as an example. That would give them equality with the woman that undergoes natural child birth as far as hours at work are concerned. Gotta be fair - right (wrong).
Application of education, innovation in and out of the work place coupled with hard work, be that swinging an axe or punching a keyboard, has made Americans the best off of all the people in the world. To come to this point has been done predominately on the guidance of the white male. Thus, is the power. That power is shifting. Some through force like protestors and anarchist want, but mostly through demonstration of ability and will of those perceived to be not equal assuming leading position.
Empowerment in relation to women is demeaning by its nature. To be empowered means that someone is giving you the okay to do whatever within the bounds the empowerment dictates. Empowerment has its roots in business. I can empower the cashier to give a ten percent discount on a damaged good presented to checkout without calling me, the manager, to the front to approve it. Thereby, the liberal white male dominated power structure says we are going to empower you women means that the women can do what they want within the bounds the liberals set. That doesn't institute equality.
Your finish is astute. I would even go further and state there is no widespread support to be had for so many of the fringe issues because not all change is good.