Most of the sensitivity/grievance culture of the Right is purely fabricated – we (including me as part of the Right) only do it to point out the hypocrisy within the Left at showing outrage, etc., only when it benefits the Left’s cause, or to create cognitive dissonance within the Left or the left’s media. Even the demands for “ideological diversity” within academia are a rhetorical gambit rather than a real demand – aimed at diminishing the prestige of Leftist academics and reducing the authority of their pronouncements, rather than actually getting more conservative academics. (However, if a conservative grad student demands “ideological diversity”, he probably means it, in the “give me a job” sense.)
Unfortunately, some people on the right, particularly the more Christian sort, have actually started to take this stuff seriously instead of understanding that it’s all just a put-on to embarrass the Left.
I agree with this in the generality. When libertarians argue against social security because it discriminates against blacks males, who have shorter life expectancies and may never reap benefits from a system they’ve paid into, they don’t really oppose social security because of disparate racial impact. That’s just an argument which might appeal to liberals.
On the other hand, I do think that some Christian conservatives sincerely accept the validity of grievance and sensitivity as organizing principles of discussion. I suspect this is a feature of the evangelical Protestant subculture in the United States, which has long been oppositional, and felt dismissed and condescended to by the mainstream society.