If you want to define "ally", first I think you need to distinguish between an alliance vs. allyship.
Alliances have been around for millennia and are based on reciprocity. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
'Allyship' is a recent concept invented by the woke movement, and it's completely a one-way street. One could summarize allyship as "You scratch my back, I check your privilege".
Women are constantly told they need to provide *allyship* to the transgender community, and that they should never, ever, ever attempt any kind of *alliance* with socially conservative men. It seems to me that of the two options, women are better off in an *alliance* with socially conservative men, because at least it can be mutually beneficial (e.g. Fox News gains legitimacy by hosting gender-critical feminists who agree with pushing back against transanity, while the feminists themselves gain wider audience exposure. Both sides get something out of it, so it's a useful if shaky alliance of convenience).
Providing *allyship* to the trans community, on the other hand, is never going to yield any benefits for women apart from some opportunities to virtue signal, because allyship is NOT a reciprocal arrangement. I personally think it takes a certain amount of narcissism to expect allyship from anyone; it reminds me of what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie once described as the woke mentality (though she didn't use the word woke):
"In certain young people today...I notice what I find increasingly troubling: a cold-blooded grasping, a hunger to take and take and take, but never give; a massive sense of entitlement; an inability to show gratitude; an ease with dishonesty and pretension and selfishness that is couched in the language of self-care; an expectation always to be helped and rewarded no matter whether deserving or not; language that is slick and sleek but with little emotional intelligence; an astonishing level of self-absorption; an unrealistic expectation of puritanism from others...I find it obscene."
If you want to define "ally", first I think you need to distinguish between an alliance vs. allyship.
Alliances have been around for millennia and are based on reciprocity. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
'Allyship' is a recent concept invented by the woke movement, and it's completely a one-way street. One could summarize allyship as "You scratch my back, I check your privilege".
Women are constantly told they need to provide *allyship* to the transgender community, and that they should never, ever, ever attempt any kind of *alliance* with socially conservative men. It seems to me that of the two options, women are better off in an *alliance* with socially conservative men, because at least it can be mutually beneficial (e.g. Fox News gains legitimacy by hosting gender-critical feminists who agree with pushing back against transanity, while the feminists themselves gain wider audience exposure. Both sides get something out of it, so it's a useful if shaky alliance of convenience).
Providing *allyship* to the trans community, on the other hand, is never going to yield any benefits for women apart from some opportunities to virtue signal, because allyship is NOT a reciprocal arrangement. I personally think it takes a certain amount of narcissism to expect allyship from anyone; it reminds me of what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie once described as the woke mentality (though she didn't use the word woke):
"In certain young people today...I notice what I find increasingly troubling: a cold-blooded grasping, a hunger to take and take and take, but never give; a massive sense of entitlement; an inability to show gratitude; an ease with dishonesty and pretension and selfishness that is couched in the language of self-care; an expectation always to be helped and rewarded no matter whether deserving or not; language that is slick and sleek but with little emotional intelligence; an astonishing level of self-absorption; an unrealistic expectation of puritanism from others...I find it obscene."