Let's not pretend like critics of SJW's are arguing in good faith.
Critics of SJW's, in my experience, frequently engage in the practice of
nut-picking. ( :bpdame: )
Basically, finding the most extreme, outlandish adherents of an ideology to criticize the ideology as a whole. It would be the same as arguing that ISIS is representative of Islamic beliefs, the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Baptist Christianity, or Jeanine Pirro is representative of the entire judicial system.
It's basically a lazy form of guilt by association. "This psycho, factually inaccurate, incoherent feminist believes structural racism is real, therefore structural racism must be bullsh*t."
Or, "this blonde, 20-something white woman who advocates for multiculturalism and diversity grew up in an affluent family, therefore she's not serious about her position".
Examining normal, everyday adherents of an ideology is pretty boring, which is why nut-picking is necessary for those who criticize SJW's.