>I've got a hard time calling people individuals rather than persons.

I see it in a different way. We all have far more in common than we have different, but we all have differences that make us unique, in the same way no two squirrels or peanuts are identical. 

But, I don't subscribe to any "woke" definition of individualism, which is like you have described, actually the antithesis of uniqueness, as it says, we have to be all inclusive, regardless of what we think, believe or feel. "Be diverse, as long as everyone behaves the same"

These movements for being "unique" is actually the desire to be part of a group and they encourage division and subdivision with no end. By the laws of nature, we are all in a minority of one, but this doesn't help build a society and emphasizing and amplifying our differences and trying to force people to adhere to our individual definitions of who we are has no end in the conflict it creates, because it can continue down to the subatomic level endlessly. 

There are always more divisions and categorizations to be made and then, in every moment we as that individual person is changing endlessly, making who we are now, different to who are *now.* Even the time between those two "nows" is divisible endlessly. And, even though I experienced that split second, I am not consciously or even subconsciously aware of all the infinitely divisible changes that took place in me, so how can I expect anyone else to behave accoring to who I am?

What people need to ask themselves is:

*Who I is?*

Empathy is real, but never accurate. I can never truly put myself in your shoes, so even though I might feel I can, it is an impossibility. However, even if I can't put myself in your shoes, I can be compassionate - so if I feel that you are suffering, I can help, even if I don't feel your suffering.