I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to this, I don't check Saiddit very often. But here is my answer in short: by moving between groups on the basis of their archetypal characters, you are reinforcing the association with those archetypal characters, which is ultimately harmful to everyone.

My go-to example for this is astrology. Everyone has a birthday, which is based on objective fact. The state of heavenly bodies at the time of one's birth - one's "sign" is also an objective fact. But the archetypal characters we associate with people born under different signs - people born under Aries are assertive and impetuous, people born under Libra are cautious and patient - are arbitrary and negative. Imagine if a person was born under Aries, but was cautious and patient and had all the archetypal characteristics of a person born under Libra. If such a person were distressed by the mis-matched, they might try to re-cast their birthday and legally change it so they were born in October, under Libra. They might also try to separate the archetype from the birthdate, saying that, for instance, "Libra" refers to all people who feel an affinity with its archetype, regardless of the time of their birth.

Both of these things would be bad, because both of them reinforce the idea that these archetypes are real, that they resound throughout the universe, and that most people adhere to them - that Libras really are a certain way, that Aries really are a certain way, and if you don't match with the others under your sign, you need to book it and detach from them and re-attach to the people you're supposed to be among.

If it's astrology, it's a little bit silly and we can all acknowledge it. But when it comes to groups that marginalize each other and are in class hierarchies, it's really shitty. If you're a member of a low-status group, then by trying to escape it because you don't like the pejorative opinions that the high-status group hold of you, you're essentially validating those opinions. Imagine a gay man who was definitely homosexual, in the sense that he only desired sex and love with other men, but who hated all the ephemera of gay culture and didn't want to be associated with the swishy queens, so he cooked up a new schema for himself - "gay" was any man who was swishy, in terms of mannerisms and presentation, and "straight" was any man who was manly, in those same terms. Under that schema, he could escape from being associated with the swishy queens, which I suppose would make him happy in the short term, and this schema theoretically allows swishy heterosexual men to buy into being gay, with all the cachet that possesses. But by refusing to fight the stereotype of the swishy queen, he's harming all homosexual men - including himself - by suggesting that they must or ought to fall into a set of stereotypes unless they specifically exclude themselves from it.

Maybe some swishy queens would like this; their swishyness is more important to them than their homosexuality, and they'd rather make common cause with swishy straights than with fellow homosexuals. But I think most of them would realize that being swishy is incidental to being gay, and would recognize that this attempt to jump ship is harming their collective position by chopping it up.