But that's a false choice; social change is only ever made by coalition and the free exchange of ideas, a process utterly inhibited if you accept the notion that labels somehow corrupt, or are prone to corruption.

I disagree with that, particularly when it comes to free associative ideologies such as feminism where the accepted general tenets shared by all are so thin as to be useless for any sort of classification or marshalling.

It's like Christianity. There are so many sects splitting up that the only thing they have in common is the notion that some guy was nailed to a piece of wood two millennia ago, and pandering to one sect can utterly alienate others.

Likewise with Feminism, the only thing that truly unites all feminists everywhere is the belief that life sucks for someone, somewhere, and that should be fixed. They don't agree on who, they don't agree on how bad, and they don't agree on what should be done. That is useless for enacting social change as a whole. Some sects have made more headway than others, but oftentimes that advancement comes at the expense of other feminist groups.

When Caitlyn Jenner came out, cue angry rant by an Oscar winning feminist director in the New York Times. That's a great look, isn't it? But, that's a problem for feminists, not for me. I can call Elinor Burkett an idiot that in no way represents me. But she is a feminist, self-identified, and no one has the power to take that association away from her anymore.

The subjective and introspective (I'm using those words positively, and without judgement) position that you advance indicates to me that you believe that most, if not all, people not only have the ability to do the same and, furthermore, ought to. But for many reasons (social pressures, religious pressures, sexism, racism, etc, etc) an overwhelming number of people are simply not afforded that opportunity to "go it alone."

I said no such thing. I was asked if I identify as a feminist. I do not, for reasons I enumerated. When pressed on the issue, I said:

Broad spectrum ideological labels are a crutch.

Now, I've worked and served with enough wounded vets, and if there's one thing I know about crutches it is that sometimes people need them. And if someone truly needs that crutch, they should lean away. But if there's a second thing I know about crutches, it's that sometimes people hold onto them longer than needed because they're scared they're feel wobbly without it. I agree that not everyone can formulate their own informed opinion. But I do think more people can than are at the moment, not just in regards to feminism, but with religion, political parties, and a host of other groups.

Collective movements, in which the contributions of individuals can be evaluated and judged, are the only way forward on some of these issues.

Effective collective movements. Effective collective movements have concrete, actionable goals, and guidelines for participants. They are results oriented, not belief or identity oriented. I volunteer at the homeless shelter run by the local Lutheran Church, and they never cared that I'm a lapsed catholic, so long as I help keep the peace. I help with the city's food bank, which is run by a bunch of old draft dodgers, and they don't care that I'm a veteran, so long as I put food on tables. The moment that I find myself in a group that rejects my help based on whether or not I subscribe to an ideological label, I know I've found a group that isn't going to do much anymore. When I find a group that insists that there way is the only way, I know I've found a group that won't do anything good anymore. History is replete with organizations that got too full of themselves and collapsed. And yet progress is still being made. The world would not end if the dogmatic adherence to the label of feminism suddenly ended.