Sooner or later, "Oriental Orthodox" will become a forbidden epithet. It is already forbidden by many strict anti-ecumenical Chalcedonians like this one. What word will the moderators use then?
I agree with the rest of what you said, but I think this is looking at it the wrong way, because it gives those Chalcedonians a sort of power (at least theoretically, in debate) to define what Orthodoxy is even for those who aren't in communion with them in the first place (and hence obviously likely don't see them as Orthodox in the first place). I have tried to impress this point upon many an EO inquirer on this very board, but somehow it never seems to sink in. You've read the Chalcedonian polemics, and obviously side with them, but why then do you think you can point to those same polemics (like the stuff in the link) and assume that it should leave non-Chalcedonians quaking in their boots, begging to be accepted by the Russians or the Greeks or whomever? As though these are our Fathers just because they are yours? I mean here quotes from John Damascene, or the monks of Mt. Athos, or wherever else. Sometimes they are interesting, sometimes they are insightful, but I don't care about these people when they go on and on about the "heresy of the Egyptians" or whatever, because I've studied the Egyptians in question themselves, from their own writings, under the tutelage of other actual Egyptians, too. And I'm supposed to disregard what I've learned of what they actually teach and believe because of polemics on the internet that can't even keep their story straight sometimes (perhaps you remember the great ruckus when one "Abouna" Athanasius Henein 'converted' to EOxy? There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance. So I always say (in contexts where it comes up, as when talking to Latin friends who also have this "Orthodox = Chalcedonian" mindset, too, for obvious reasons) that when I use the word Orthodox self-referentially, I am not intending to speak for the EO in the slightest -- rather, where/when we agree, we agree. But you will never find me begging to be considered Orthodox by anyone, because I am only trying to follow what our Fathers St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Basil and others laid down as fundamental to the Orthodox faith. Such strong, clear, foundational teachers of our faith cannot be degraded by internet polemic, and so neither will my faith in the Orthodoxy of our confession (which is to say, in ORTHODOXY, period).
I do not understand why every non-Chalcedonian does not take a similar approach. It has been suggested by our common friend Stavros (I think that's what he goes by on here, anyway) that the view I have been taught is something of a minority within the Coptic Orthodox Church itself, where people apparently prefer to treat EO as if they are de facto Orthodox, and so we should be in that sense pro-Chalcedonian. Well, I can't really speak to that, but abouna told me in no uncertain terms that he will not commune Chalcedonians at our church, as the Tome of Leo which they profess as Orthodox is "full of heresies" (his words). Is this extremism or anti-ecumenism? I hardly think so, as that same priest speaks very highly of the local Greek Orthodox Church, with whom we share close relations, and will even on occasion reference Greek, Russian, or Romanian saints to make a point during a talk. It seems for the most hardcore anti-ecumenists, this alone would be evidence of heresy, but I don't see it that way. I don't think we need to be hateful toward anybody (and again, where we agree, we agree), but I fear if Stavros is correct, maybe some people get the idea that they should feel ashamed when the Chalcedonians say we aren't Orthodox or whatever. Like we have something to fix. Doctrinally, I don't see what that would be. I would hope we can be confident (not prideful) and assert the Orthodoxy of our confession before anybody and everybody (even the most hardcore anti-OO), and not apologize that we hold to St. Cyrill's formulation of μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. In the face of this Orthodox confession, the anti-OO Chalcedonians could call us all the names in the world and I wouldn't care. We don't become Orthodox whenever they'll agree with us, only to become heterodox when some idiot shows up with links to his YouTube channel to remind us all that, surprise surprise, the EO and OO don't agree with each other on everything and so remain out of communion. This is not news, some 1600 years on...but it always is news to me when we are once again "monophysites" or "Eutychians" because some guy with more zeal than brains doesn't know what words mean. I always find myself saying "Arghh...really, again with this?" But it's not really a surprise, you know? You've read that link. You see what they have to work with. Lord have mercy.