I don't think that's a sufficient argument in favor of labeling. I know what TERFs are (I've been around the block) and I don't use that term either, even though I argue vehemently against the positions that you would label as TERF positions.

But this is more than just labeling. I use the terms "left" and "right" which is a label. I would also use the term "Intersectional Feminist" or "Class struggle anarchist". These are terms that are neutral, descriptive and useful.

What I will not do is take people I disagree with, categorize them in a way that bolsters my opinion, and then argue against that fictional categorization.

For instance, there are many Hillary supporters who defended her relationship with Henry Kissinger, a position I find absolutely unconscionable. It makes me sick to my stomach that anyone on the left would consider a genocidal war criminal such as Mr. Kissinger a "trusted friend."

However, I would absolutely not create a derogatory label such as "Hillary Hawk" or "Kissinger Kid", even though it would "speed up" my arguments, because it creates a toxic environment for discussion. It is better if I target the arguments and behaviors specifically, and do not rest lazily on easy assumptions and categorizations.