So your contention with the term is that it was misappropriated? Or that it's generalizing too many groups of people? Your first paragraph seems to imply the former, your second the latter.
It doesn't really matter to me what words you use. You can replace it with Justice-Crusader, if you want. It's still a useful term to describe certain folks. I think if you think James Rolfe is sexist because he doesn't want to watch the new Ghostbusters movie, that's a pretty good litmus test. And I am pretty certain I could predict what other kind of views that person holds. Sure, I'm painting with a broad brush, but that's what humans do. Catch-all terms are a convenience.
As for you second paragraph, we can argue about that all day. You say it's an imaginary grouping, I don't think it is. You point out how people that are for advancement of certain causes are at odds with each other's agenda, but that's one of the very thing that makes these people so silly to me, they hold contradictory beliefs. The same people that will vehemently argue in one thread that male and female brains aren't wired differently (because thinking so would be sexist) will argue in another thread that a transgender person was born as a man with a female brain (I am over-simplifying, but you get the gist).
Anyway, I am rambling and I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. I clearly am not thinking about this on any kind of deep level, like you, and I'm ok with that. I'm ok with being ambivalent towards certain issues, and I'm ok with being only mildly sympathetic to some causes rather than actively involved. I just think some people are a bit over the top is all.
