I would just call it the academia paradigm. If you've been in academia or been around professional academics -- they love to think the same way, talk the same way, write the same way, dress the same way. It's group think. It's very much a specific kind of sub-culture with a shared set of values.
Sort of like how Silicon Valley has a certain kind of sub-culture, set of values, and set of assumptions about life. All of which constitutes a paradigm, POV, or interpretive framework.
Every paradigm or POV is blind to its own biases, values, and assumptions until you step out of it and observe it from the outside. Every paradigm takes itself to be the sum total of reality, which it never is because the map is never the territory, and the territory is infinite.
This is a very deep epistemic problem, not merely a problem of universities or Silicon Valley or Hollywood.

Yes and no. Part of the challenges of being in a group-think bureaucracy is that you must then follow their rules to survive in that ecosystem or risk getting excommunicated. As a result, academics often consign themselves to be slaves of the system. They are not in a position of power to challenge rules and norms, so they just end up accepting it as "reality". Of course not always. There are plenty of exceptions here and there.
But many of the most advanced humans end up leaving academia because they need a more stage Turquoise ecosystem.
It can be painful to be the biggest fish in a tiny pond. Whales need to seek the ocean and academia is like SeaWorld

Gender is about identity, and as such is inherently contrived. You can decide that you're a man, woman, or somewhere in the middle, or neither, because all identity (including gender identity) is inherently false, as it is an ego construct. 
So, if there are trans/genderqueer people who say that man and woman is a construct, they are correct. When there are people who say that the multitude of genders is made up, they are also correct. All identity is a contrivance. But because all identity is inherently contrived, it's in a person's best interest to choose whichever one they feel most comfortable with and whichever one serves as the best and widest lens for their Yin/Yang signature to be expressed. The identity is the lens for the more subtle aspects of our nature. It's how nature and nurture work together to create an outward expression.
So, if someone assigned male at birth, genuinely has a lot of Yin energy, they may feel like the identity of "woman" is a better lens for which to express their natural energy. To identify with maleness, would be an innapropriate lens as it would block their most basic essence from being expressed fully. Or if someone feels like neither male nor female are good lenses for their most basic nature, they may consider themselves genderfluid or genderqueer. Knowing these words as concepts can help people navigate their relationship to the gender spectrum.
The reason why all these delineations of gender exist, is because some people have a genuinely complex relationship to gender and their place on the gender spectrum. So, they invent new terms for better understanding. 
It's kind of like how in Florida, there is like three words for snow that we might use, as we don't really deal with snow that often... in fact we never do. But in Eskimo language, there are like 30 different words that mean snow with like slight variations on the meaning. This is because Eskimos have a much more complex relationship to snow than Floridians like myself. 
For someone who feels comfortable with the gender identity that matches with their biological sex, it may seem silly to make up these identities. We take so much for granted that gender isn't a part of identity and think of it as just a fact of who we are. We don't really have to think about it because the default works for us. But for some, the default doesn't work, and I think if these different gender delineations help them know and express themselves better, then I can't see it as anything else than a positive thing. 
Identity is important to people. People want to identify certain ways that make them feel happier and more fulfilled. Gender identity as an extension of that is a very important aspect of identity. 

You literally are the universe, whatever you can feel the universe can too
The purpose of life is to love, and to become as loving as possible
The true test of your love is based upon your ability to love everything 
Think of something you love and expand that feeling onto all of reality. 
Love is something you need to create. Creating love is done proactively, consciously and deliberately. Be persistent with developing the ability to trigger love internally vs externally.
What prevents love? The ego's fear of disillusion. The ego doesn't want to 'die' 
Who we really are is too big to conceptualize, that it's scary for us to accept.
Truth is love 
A person who hates is incapable of loving himself. He loves only those parts of himself which are easy to love (this is where the concept of being able to love everything comes into play) so he denies, suppresses other parts of himself and then projects them out onto the world. 
Every evil person acts out of love (Hitler)
Types of love:
1) Liquid form of love is loving your parents, what you are conditioned to love. (You don't actually unconditionally love your parents) ?Questionable because if this is true than that means you can't actually love your spouse. 
2) Gaseous form of love is taking 5MeO-dmt or any strong psychedelics I'm assuming, unless you are at the point where you can naturally use your internal love to project onto reality? (unconditional love) 
3) solid form of love is hating 
 

The common thread to your examples is the act of wanting/chasing/escaping to/searching for/looking for/seeking refuge in.
All acts of movement away from what-is.  This is the inherent nature of ego mind and how it self-sustains. 
Thought-self (ego) is constantly seeking security in its own movement through this seeking-escaping action.   No seeking-escaping, no ego