Well OP, I mostly agree with you, the social justice movement has a lot of problems and I'm not sure how we can fix it (when even Jonathan Haidt gets shit on, you know something is wrong).

But, and this is where I disagree with you, I think it's important to avoid using the Sacred Labels to describe the group[1] because that just polarizes the discussion (see this great presentation by Haidt).

Basically, the problem is that there is a social effect where both sides focus on the worst examples of the behaviour of the "other" group (similar to what Scott Alexander calls the PETA effect):

In the same way, publicizing how strongly you believe an accusation that is obviously true signals nothing. […] A moral action that can be taken just as well by an outgroup member as an ingroup member is crappy signaling and crappy identity politics. If you want to signal how strongly you believe in taking victims seriously, you talk about it in the context of the least credible case you can find.

So the point I would like to make is that you should not apply labels to disorganised movements such as Social Justice because it just keeps polarizing people. Moreover, there probably are people who are reasonable yet identify with the movement. Or just people who agree with the movement and would get polarized by your statements even though they don't identify with it. Similar to how, I suppose, you don't identify with the MRA movement, but take unkindly to what the "crazy kind" of SJWs say.

[1] Although there totally are examples of exactly what you're speaking of