"What's the end goal of all this" is an interesting question to ask. I wonder whether there's an ideological component to it where the end goal is avoiding culpability.

By that I mean, there's this recurring theme in abuse/oppression where the oppressed party says "please, stop, you're hurting me!" and the oppressor's response is "well, you're hurting me too! It hurt when you accused me of mistreatment!" At that point---and I assume you're perfectly familiar with this, don't want to over-explain---the oppressor is the one responsible for stopping the mistreatment, but they don't have any intrinsic motivation to do so. Not only would they have to willingly give up power, they'd have to acknowledge that they've been engaging in immoral behavior. And that's emotionally rough. It's even rougher to admit that you were at fault and that someone you consider inferior was right all along.

Of course, this often arises from a form of black-and-white thinking where the oppressor sees any criticism as a personal attack. They think sexism is bad---of course sexism is bad! And because they think sexism is bad, they can't possibly be sexist! Wait, now people are saying this action is sexist? Why, that can't be true! People they know who aren't sexist do that all the time! Those people saying it's sexist are a bunch of vindictive nutters.

But that approach is epistemologically weak. That is, say there are three people who own houses with basements. A friend visits the first person's house, goes down to the basement, and says "hey, your basement's dirty," to which person 1 immediately responds "Oh no, I'm sorry about that! I'll take care of it right away." Another friend visits the second person's house, goes down to the basement, and says "hey, your basement's dirty." Person 2 gets defensive. "What?! My basement can't be dirty! I'm a clean person! My house is clean! Where do you get off, accusing people of having dirty basements like some kind of neat-freak victim," and then never goes down to check. Because of course it's clean! And the third person goes down to the basement on their own before the friend visits, to try and get out any cobwebs beforehand, and invites their friend to hunt down any specks of dust if they so desire. So at the end of the day, who's most likely to have a clean basement? (My apologies if I come off as over-explaining; I'm assuming you know this perfectly well. I just enjoy the metaphor.)

So who's more likely to be sexist/racist/homophobic? The person who says "of course I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic! I know that sexism, racism, and homophobia are bad!" or the person who says "yeah, I've done sexist/racist/homophobic things. Now I know exactly what the problems with my actions are, and I owe it to the people I hurt to be better." But then again, who's going to be perceived as less sexist/racist/homophobic by the uninitiated? The second person directly admitted to problematic behavior, after all. I've seen people who call themselves feminists fall into this trap, too.

Anyway, my point is that many of the things TIMs focus on echo the oppressor's perception of how the oppressed class is behaving. The Oppression Olympics, for example. To the oppressor, their victims aren't victims at all, but rather using their oppressed-class status to label whole groups of people as Bad. Now, if he chooses to, a man can transition from "evil man" to "literally the most oppressed"---and suddenly, not only is he no longer in the Bad group, he gets to do the fun bit of telling everyone how hard he has it and how everyone who's not trans should feel guilty about themselves.

Also, many of the things TIMs label as oppression have to do with being accused of misbehavior. It's "men fear that women will laugh at them, women fear that men will kill them," in a different package. Look at the dangerous and violent behavior they accuse radfems of perpetuating: saying transwomen are men. Saying the laws they promote are giving sexual predators easier access to women. Saying that other people are allowed to have sexual boundaries and you can't get around them by lying. Not validating them hard enough. Stealing women's spaces, movements, and identities. So, several ways of saying "stop, stop, your basement is dirty." Odd that physical violence isn't an issue... and that they're more concerned with chastising radfems than the conservative men who are actually killing them.

Their treatment of radical feminists is in line with the idea that if someone does something bigoted once, they are automatically a bigot now and forever and must be chastised. Make a mistake once, say something problematic once and it leaves a black mark on your soul forever, and admitting any fault means you know you're a bad person and deserve it. And lastly, the belief that membership in an oppressed group implies that someone is 100% the victim, always, and so therefore doesn't need to reflect on how their own actions could be problematic.

So I think part of the allure for some is a twofer: behaving the way they think oppressed people act, where the end goal is to scream down, browbeat, and accuse the oppressors rather than to get the boot off their neck; and removing themselves from the privileged groups that have a responsibility to reflect on their own behavior. Because the truth is, yes, they are bigots, and the basement's collecting dust while they claim "I can't be bigoted! I'm trans! I'm vulnerable!" It's all a big misdirection.

That's my take, anyway.