As some of you pointed out, "secular humanist" is an actual label, whereas "humanist secularist" or what have you is not and seems destined to cause people to squint at you funny. Muddying th waters more is the fact that for years now "humanist" has been understood by most to be shorthand for "secular humanist." I rather picture people saying simply that they are a humanist and only adding further designations if asked for clarification.

Humanist. Well, yes. I should think that most of us are humanist to one degree or another and I don't think it requires a declaration. It would seem to me that for anyone other than the total sociopath, that would be like a default position for almost everyone.

I say I'm an atheist/evidentialist/rationalist and I just assume that others understand that I am also humanist in my own way. I think the article puts too much emphasis on the title and not the action. I see someone hurting, I feel their pain. I see someone in need and my first reaction is a desire to help. That is just a part of being the social animal we are -- humanist. Why give it any special recognition? I don't see that it is either necessary or helpful in the descriptive sense.

I like the term "humanist". It is what I use first to describe myself. Well after "David", etc.