Russ, I was young once - or so I have been told - so trying to see the responses from that earlier perspective, the problem appears to be one of imaginary rebellion, a dislike (stated, but perhaps just bravado) for organised order.
My personal reason for wishing there were defined categories is simple: there are only so many genres of photography on which I am willing to spend my ever-shortening time. I have no desire to wade through ARATs again; I do not think it brilliant planning to feel forced to wade through endless cats 'n' pooches, through all manner of stuff that holds no personal appeal for me.
Someone asked, as a form of attack, why not a section for, along with other things, fashion. Simply put, apart from about three of us who did that professionally, from whence the snaps? You can reduce that princely total even further: I have but two such pix left from all those years of earning my crust with it. There is no such thing as amateur fashion photography. There are only bad jokes. Period.
Even street is not some massive, homogenous whole; there are famed names who don't do much for me as there are others I almost worship. For instance, I see Leiter as an exponent of street art, quite unlike either Meyerowitz or Winogrand who are, to me, raw street. I would look at (and do) Leiter's oeuvre almost every day, but not the others. Why would I consider a better-organised LuLa a disadvantage?
It's all about not wasting available time on uninteresting subject matter. (A personal call, which - as somebody else here with a penchant for quoting such things says - is my right to make.)
The better organised, the better all round.