Most of that I get...but why did you feel that the fact that some are trans/non-binary was somehow a sign of lack of commitment. Simply to live as a trans/non-binary person is an enormous commitment, from all I have seen, and I've worked with numerous trans/non-binary people of all ages who are among the most effective and committed activists and organizers I've ever met.

Agreed that allyship has often been conditional and situational- and that this is problematic- but in my experience, one of the things that can weaken a commitment to that is the "no white person can ever be anything better than a 'passive oppressor' ". No one is owed adulation for joining the antiracist cause, but it would probably help if white activists who did stay in were at least given something close to the benefit of the doubt- that they might make mistakes, that they might not always do everything exactly as they should, but that their basic allegiance to antiracism and antioppression wouldn't be treated as if it was in question, that they'd be at least treated as if they were essentially on the right side of history.

It's hard to understand what is achieved by insisting that white activists in the antiracist cause should have to keep proving their loyalty to the cause over and over again.

There is a clear need to set up some agreed-upon standard of establishing what I'd call "provisional trust"- that is, a clear set of tests that, once passed, lead to an acknowledgement that allies/accomplices/accompanists/accordionists, or whatever term we all eventually agree to use should no longer be treated as though their commitment can be accepted, at least for the time being, as valid and proven.