I avoid calling myself a philosopher as a (perhaps foolish) tactic. I imagine that if I present an argument as a philosopher, it may distract those in a position of authority or those who look to authority from the argument before them. They may instead focus on my qualifications for calling myself a philosopher and what my credentials are, which from the perspective of a submission to authority, I have none to speak of. This makes it a simple matter to dismiss the need to consider the argument at all, as other philosophers with a different idea of what makes a philosopher might dismiss me as a fake and a fraud, and my arguments along with it. The baby and the bathwater.

Of course, I realize in the academic realm (of which I'm sure you've dealt with far more frustration than I) it would be just as damning to say you aren't a philosopher, as they may feel that only real philosophers are worth hearing out. That, and academics seem to be inclined to not utilize philosophy as a system of exploration, rather a regurgitation of the history of philosophy. Repackaging the recorded thoughts of bolder thinkers gone before.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.