The officially sanctioned view of academia, as propounded by the Intersectional Critical Theory doctrine that governs the current Gender Studies field (occasionally going by a different name such as Women's Studies or Race Studies, where gender is specifically understood to be a form of race) there is in fact only one way to not be involved in the promotion of White Supremacy.

Of course, you are also many other bad things as well, in addition to a promoter of White Supremacy. You are, by implication, a homophobe, a transphobe and a queerphobe (if this is distinct from homophobia. If you are non-white and non-Asian and non-"white-adjacent", then you are also guilty of race treason. This is why you see so many academic documents providing lists of beliefs it is necessary to profess before you can be an "ally". It's also why you see so many white women screaming at black police that they are traitors to their race: this is what they have been taught, and what they have committed to memory. Policemen, who are preventing them from rioting, are therefore not allies, and if they are obviously black people, then they are traitors and they must be called out as such. "Calling out" traitors is a duty, not an option.

The only way to avoid belonging to the category of "promoter of White Supremacy" is to adopt in toto Intersectional Critical Theory, although this is usually simply referred to as doing the work, according to proponents of this field, which has supplanted all rival theories. Under Intersectionality, the only way to qualify is to adopt in full the program of agitation for a certain list of oppressed groups: women, brown people, black people, queer people, gay people and trans people.

This is not a cafeteria option: you don't have the choice to agitate for only some of the above groups. If you fail to support any of them, you're no longer Intersectional and thus you belong to the White Supremacist enemy.

You may have noticed that what Intersectional Critical Theorists call TERFs and what they themselves identify as Gender-Critical Feminists, are universally denounced as hateful traitors by mainstream academic feminism. This is despite the fact that usually, Gender-Critical Feminists are completely on the reservation in terms of the officially-permitted position regarding women, brown people, black people, queer people, gay people but not trans people.

The way this connects with the accusation (which the relevant academic departments universally accept as a fact, not an opinion) of White Supremacy is very simple indeed.

If you go back to the world before 1917, the entire world was both capitalist and White Supremacist. All of the planet (except a very few exceptions, who were all economically insignificant) was ruled directly from a European capital like all of Africa, or ruled by an oligarchy of the descendants of European colonizers (Canada, all of Latin America, Australia etc) or dominated by interference from London, Paris and Washington (Indochina, China, Japan, Persia). The Ottoman Empire was governed in a distinctly European style, according to norms you can fairly describe as an Islamic version of European, and therefore white, style of governance. And the Sultan was firmly under the influence of Germany in its final years. Homosexuality, of course, was completely banned in almost all of the world, and women were denied the right to vote in most national-level elections, in those parts of the world where elections were held.

From this standpoint, it's not insane to say the in 1917, there really was an all-powerful Capitalist, anti-female, anti-gay, White power structure and belief structure that excluded most non-Ottoman non-White points of view and approaches to government.

The Critical Theory approach is simply to assert that this world-view simply persisted unchanged after 1917 and continues today, with all changes simply fake window-dressing. The legal revolution of civil rights in the USA, for example, changed nothing of any substance, according to Critical Theory. The academic source of the idea that the legal reforms of the civil rights era didn't end the total domination of White Supremacy is based on the work of Dr Derrick Bell, the first tenured African-American professor of law at Harvard Law School. From him and his colleagues comes the first instance of "Critical Race Theory". In the early 1990s Dr Kimberlé Crenshaw formulated the Intersectional argument, which has since grown from inclusion of women and black people within the "intersecting" unified pressure group such that mainstream (which is to say, non-TERF) academic Critical Theory departments now consider the Intersectional group to include the various color and "color-adjacent" groups, plus Queer and trans people.

Just to recap: the core belief of Intersectional Critical Theory is that nothing of significance has changed since 1917. All of the reforms that took place since then had no impact beyond the superficial: the rise of Communism with its granting of the right to vote in fake elections to women along with full legal equality, the dissolution of all of the European empires, the end of the legal persecution of homosexuality, the rise of the Welfare State, the Civil Rights Act and Brown v Board of Education, the granting of voting rights to all women on Earth where voting is part of the system. None of those things, on their own or taken together, were sufficient to replace the pre-1917 world-view of White Supremacy. It's still in charge, under a thin, fake veneer of reforms.

Gender-Critical Feminists believe everything in the preceding paragraph too. Their only disagreement with mainstream Intersectional Critical Theory is that they think trans women are not women. And that alone is enough for them to be cast out to be with the White Supremacists. The fact that they are in almost-complete agreement with an obviously-insane worldview is not enough to protect them from being purged, like the Trotskyites and the Social Democrats, back in the 1920s. The comparison with the USSR is deliberate, as it too had absolutely no tolerance for even the most minimal "deviationism".

The only form of consciousness that offers an exit from White Supremacy is that which fully accepts every element of Intersectional Critical Theory, and remains loyal to every one of the previously-named groups.

It's also, shall we say, an intriguing coincidence that the creation of Intersectional Critical Theory happened at precisely the same time as the fall of Soviet-style centrally-planned Communism. I think a large number of us on this subreddit don't properly understand that people who subscribe to this ideology, which includes Antifa and Black Lives Matter, can never reconcile with our views while remaining true to Intersectional Critical Theory.

By questioning feminism in even the mildest way, we are undermining Intersectional Critical Consciousness and thus helping the White Supremacy which can only be defeated by Intersectional Critical Consciousness.

In short, if you question any aspect of their feminism at all, you are equivalent to a Klansman slicing off a black boy's genitals in 1907. Your White Supremacy has nothing to do with your skin color, and it doesn't matter if you personally marched with Dr King in Selma.

With this in mind, any notions of "building bridges" with this ideology are a fantasy. If they can't build bridges with Gender-Critical Feminists/TERFs, they are certainly not going to tolerate people who criticize other aspects of feminism.

Do you disagree? Do you think that there's a way to bridge the divide, without us abandoning all our differences on our understanding of reality even though I've explained the cause of the TERF purge? Tell me why I'm wrong!