Deconstructing this post, which is a classic example of conditional allyship

@MadFckingWitch

Replying to
@Erythrina5
Yep, it’s easy to find a few trans people who disagree with the facts. It’s also easy to find people who think the earth is flat. Carry on.

1. The author is staking a claim to The Facts, as determined by her. The Facts to which she refers are "facts" about the lived experiences of trans people. If some trans people disagree with The Facts they are, in her terms, as

ridiculous as "flat earthers." Flat earthers are fringe group loonies who hold bizarre views that nobody other than them takes seriously. It's an arrogant put down, used to discredit, humiliate & ostracise.
The author claims to be an "ally" of trans people

but apparently not all trans people, only the trans people who agree with The Facts. The author seems to believe that all trans people should hold the same opinion & have the same feelings. The author dehumanises

trans people with her demands that they all think the same, retaining the privilege of dissent for non-marginalised groups & making group think a requirement of her support.

This this is allyship with a caveat. It is allyship that is far more to do with the ally than it is to do with the marginalised group. It excludes trans people who do not accept The Facts. It demands that all trans people accept the beliefs

of a non trans person, who is claiming to know better than they do The Facts of their experience. It's a very common gaslighting technique. It's the one where if you disagree, you're an outlier who has been brainwashed into wrong-headed thinking & you

therefore have no standing in your own community. It is entirely dehumanising, suggesting as it does that whoever doesn't agree with The Facts is not capable of genuine thought & genuine disagreement, but is only disagreeing because someone else

has influenced them. In this example it's being applied to trans people, however it's a classic tactic of "allies" who have assumed that role in order to prioritise themselves & their own agenda, & it shows up everywhere. Such "allies" contribute to division

among marginalised groups by pitting their members against one another.

Allyship should never usurp the lived experience of marginalised people. Allyship should never humiliate people who say their experience is not the same as others in their community.

Allies don't set the terms of engagement. Allies are guests in the space. And nobody can advocate for any group while simultaneously denigrating some of its members.