That term has an interesting history.
But it’s current use – as @Yellowdog describes – is another interesting one. It’s one of those terms that conservatives preemptively hurled at so-called liberals. Conservatives do this, and often their attempts are successful.
So, in the case of snowflake, you have fragile conservatives who cannot handle change, and needing things to be a very specific way. They have had systemic safe spaces and fear losing them. This fear and transparent fragility is humiliating when they pick up the “snowflake” label and hurl it at those that are able to withstand change and the erosion of certain protections. It’s the ultimate case of call your opponent something before they can, so the framing of an issue is one that you control.
To answer your question – I reject the term and don’t use it. To do so is to engage in the most absurd game of political language play. The fragility of conservatives and white supremacists in their need to be protected and shielded from reality is so apparent and sad, to throw the term back at them would be foolish. The framing is all wrong. They are fragile and are demanding special treatment and protections. But there is nothing we can or should do to reach out to these vile creatures. They won’t be convinced with witty wordplay or hypocrisy “gotchas”.
I also don’t think decent people should engage with this “snowflake” narrative. I’m not even a liberal, and I’ve been called a “snowflake” a ton. It’s something to be ignored or owned. Snow and snowflakes kick ass, and someone wants to refer to my ability to weather change as something as beautiful as a snowflake, then so be it.