As an example of rhetoric which pigeon-holes an author with a label instead of examining a position, I find this answer typical of responses in this community:
Then you appear to be either a moral non-cognitivist (see SEP metaethics, a further article, and the article on cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism ) if you think that moral claims are psychological statements and/or a moral relativist if your main point is that these things are decided by majorities in cultures.
The issue at hand is not how the OP appears as or how they are identified but instead the issue is the argument and the position the author asks a question about. Tho this is largely the result of sloppy rhetoric, the result is that the author is told what they think and how they are labelled which does nothing to address the question about the issue.
As written these kinds of answers are examples of the ad hominem fallacy as it is the person being described and not the position. Note, argumentum ad hominem is not technically pejorative or derogatory, just to the person instead of to the argument. Inasmuch, answers stating such a label are non sequitur.
It would be one thing if an author asked the question, "Am I a moral-cognitivist?" but the question "Is there an empirical system of ethics?" is clearly not about the author's personal identity.
Is there anything which can be done on the site to discourage such ad hominem rhetoric and improve the focus upon the message instead of the messenger?