I really didn't want to address this, but both RH Host, and the Roommate pointed this article out to me.
Jay Michaelson on Flexidoxy. Basically he says that there are Orthodox people who don't really fit the label of Orthodox due to their practice and ideology. I have some issues with his examples and definitions, but as I mentioned in an earlier post David Kelsey says it better. And he isn't the only one who takes issue with the label. Avi BenJakob at Jewdot says, in response to Esther Kustanowitz's claim that Flexidox is actually Conservadox, that Flexidox is actually just "lazy Orthodox." On the other side of the debate Jake at Mima'amakim embraces the article because it shows that there are "people out there thinking the same thoughts, going through the same processes" as he is.
As for me? I think that Jay Michaelson is conflating two different things. As much as I am loathe to add more new labels to Judaism, he is in fact observing a trend. Or two trends. I will illustrate with a personal anecdote. While in college I made it clear that I was looking to date someone "Modern Orthodox" and asked RH Host about the gabbai of my school's Orthodox minyan. His response was "He is neither modern enough, nor Orthodox enough for you." Yet most people would classify this young man as Modern Orthodox. Why? Because he touches girls. Many people define Modern Orthodoxy as those who go to an Orthodox shul, like the mechitza, but don't necessarily keep strictly kosher, or touch people of the opposite gender. I would not call this Modern Orthodox. I would call it "permissive" Orthodox, or were I to be in a cranky and judgemental mood "lazy" Orthodox.
Modern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the attempt to reconcile the halakha with modern practices, using the standard halakhic method. It is the belief that halakha can be updated, and changed, so that it is permissable for a woman to wear pants, not just because she wants to, but because it is neither considered beged eish (men's clothing) nor immodest.