Are you explaining a thing, or naming it?

I'm familiar with the concept. I acknowledge it refers to a real phenomenon, but grant it no merits; the use of it in argument always minds me of a Douglas Adams quote:

"If we find something we can't understand we like to call it something you can't understand, or indeed pronounce. I mean if we just let you go around calling him a Rain God, then that suggests that you know something we don't, and I'm afraid we couldn't have that.

No, first we have to call it something which says it's ours, not yours, then we set about finding some way of proving it's not what you said it is, but something we say it is."

In particular, the second part. There was already recognition of the fact that "privilege" was a fragmented concept, and in response to constant objections on that ground, the fragmentation was named, and thereby claimed. (And yes, arguments on this matter long predate that particular name, which arose in the late 80's.)

The reason I mock that concept, however, is that it is -always- a categorical error to treat me as a collection of my labels. Trust me when I say that you have no idea what my life has been like as an atheist living in a particularly religious small southern town. (Seriously. I had a minister apologize to me because a student was proselytizing at me; the student later apologized as well, and we got on on good terms.) Nor do you have any idea what my life has been like as a bisexual male. All you can do is make assumptions. I don't particularly care if you assume I've had a tough life, a sinful life, a hedonistic life, or a boring one; none of these is any more right than any others.

The only labels which matter in relation to me are those I have chosen for myself. Anybody arguing otherwise is on the same side of the categorical error fence as racists and homophobes.