I'm not in the business of bashing fantasies (Turkish nationalists and Kurds), but In my opinion that Kurdishnnes, same as Anatolian Turkishness, are relatively (in relative to the age of history) new identities and a result of mixture of not only multiple races but even ethnicities.
I don't know if I'm making sense anthropologically, but I think that genetically and culturally we can see relative homogeneity and continuity among people in places such as Europe, Egypt, North Africa, Sub Saharan Africa, east asians, Semites...etc. Yes maybe initially in the beginning there were different (although relatively limited) races/ethnicities but then merged to form a new culture/ethnicity/race early in human history. Europeans were mainly Haplogroup I and then R1 entered early in history on the line, they merged and local cultures formed. North Africans still show hight frequencies of Haplogroup E1b1b, 75% in Morocco. Excluding new influence we find that they had very hight frequencies of that maybe with other minor influences from semitic world. Also Egyptian civilization is an authentic civilization from its indigenous people, same fore east asians, semitic, African...etc
So my observation is that later civilizations that emerged later were a mixture of these primary civilizations in many ways, manly genetically and culturally. Similar to the primary colors (Red, Yellow, Blue) that creates all other colors. For example, I'm proud of Turanic heritage, but I know that I only have little Turanic blood. So before a 1000 years before that Turanic culture dominated my ancestors in Anatolia, what culture they belonged to? Maybe part of Anatolia was European (East Roman) and the other part was influenced by Semitic (Arab conquest) What about before that? I don't know, because turkey is very diverse there is no one racial/cultural/ethnic group that have always lived there. So I think it is difficult to say (My ancestors x thousands of years ago was such and such and i'm their descendants and my culture is a continuation of them) and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that although I know some might not like it
I think this is the same case in Iranian cultures, including Kurdish. It is difficult to pin point an exact ancestor and say that this is my ancestor and I descend from him culturally/racially. Because these cultures are layers upon layers of different races/ethnicities/cultures. Proto-Iranians mixed with the Pre- Iranian people of the iranian plateau and with nearby peoples, including the semites whom's cultures they adopted and inherited. The Proto-Iranians were absorbed by these layers and later was influenced by Greek, Roman and Indian, and to a lesser extent Egyptian culture, and added to them (such as the creation of Zoroastrianism) to create this melting pot that we know as Iranian cultures, most famously the Persian empire. This dynamic of the broad group that we call Iranian cultures continued until recent history. Historians as recent as the islamic era used the word "Kurds" to refer nomads of all different groups and ethnicities, then relatively recently they became one group.
So to pin point one or two groups of people out of this melting pot and say that they created all or most of this, and further more to try to show a continuity from the Sumerians and claim that the latter group was simply Proto-Kurdish (or any other group) minus the Indo-Iranian component (which is represented genetically by the Haplogroup R1) is beyond delusional and absurd.