This is something over time that has really gnawed at me, given this kind of 'do you have standing to talk about it' test that is basically a step 1 or step 2 of interacting politically and partisanly online.
And it cuts a lot of ways in slipshod manner. So for some that are cognizant of larger offline social dynamics relating to marginalized and oppressed peoples, the impulse to give automatic standing is present and given, BUT is litigated around claims that one is faking who they say they are, and there are enough True Positives of people faking to keep it up.
It feels like such a ridiculous shortcut, where you're not withholding on elevating voices, you're questioning whether the voice is a legitimate/authentic voice and picking apart an identity to other and outgroup the other party in a discourse. So you don't have to elevate them per some kind of principle of compensating for the shit that offline society dishes out, you can disrule the other party from belonging to that marginalized cohort at all. It's a cheap fucking trick and it's endemic to everything. It's pops up in racial discourse, gender discourses, queer discourses that if you aren't talking some Liberal/Progressive Soup, you don't belong to the larger racial/gender/queer cohort at all. And we know that isn't true, but it's to debase standing on subject.
Some are on such a rote routine of turning off their brains to adhere to that magnanimous principle, that they wind up contorting notions of intersectionality to be unilateral escape clauses for themselves or an avatar that speaks for them.
Some are so petrified of stepping on toes and their social reputation maligned they'll take up bad causes and dogpile others along one line, only to play defense the next day on that same line, and for what?
I really fucking hate how the game goes online sometimes and why I am so persistent that some kind of online social intimacy has to backed up with offline social intimacy. And if it isn't backed up, then stock isn't put into it as much and certainly not at parity with a living person right in front of you.
Otherwise you can go really bad monolithizing/tokenizing places and orient everything around meta appearances and engagement.
I really do feel a lot of this emanates from overcompensating obtuse Prog/Libs, like you see the same standing thing and outgrouping towards Black mainline conservatives to out-in-the-open-and-loving-it fascists, but because they aren't in closer proximity for just talking about it and might actually be up for grabs in Prog/Lib Theories of Politics involving Electoralism, they get the Uncle Tom Treatment rather than questioning whether they are indeed Black at all online behind an avatar.