It's not "conditional allyship" that is in play here, it is if people accept unconditionally the idea that someone can declare themselves into man- or womanhood. By not arguing the reality of the matter but arguing the state of allyship that is indicated by refering a rapist of one's own mother by their actual sex and not their claimed gender, the TRAs are attempting to enforce discipline, and the doctrine of no debate no discussion, on their allies sad pathetic dupes.

I suspect most people who accept claims of a trans identity at face value, ie "allies", do so until the "good fences make good neighbors" idea is breached. Women don't rape their mothers. Very few, very extremely messed up, men might.

To "revoke" this dudes' woman card is the right of anyone who uses pronouns because, as it turns out, they are the pronouns of the person using them and not of the person they are applied to. This is a simple matter of fact.

The pronouns I use in talking about someone else are my pronouns, and not theirs, just as any slurs I might utter about someone are mine and not theirs. My statements are mine. That is the reality even if no one wants to admit it, and that error is a major underpinning of trans ideology even if tras do not want to admit that trans ideology exists. The idea that a person is what they claim they are with no exceptions is an ideology, and only an ideology I suspect. I don't care if it is queer theory that says this, "identity politics" that says it or anything else, it is a flaw or a fallacy no matter what idiot came up with it.

I guess by denying the existence of trans ideology they are attempting to force discussion of their mental illnesses into the area of whether or not "trans people" exist in reality.