“ The "solidarity" performed at the London Women's March is its operational political theology, the binding agent that transforms a collection of disparate grievances into a collective force. This solidarity is active, not passive; it is the choice to stand alongside others whose immediate struggles may differ from one's own, based on a shared analysis of interlocking systems of power. It is the recognition that an attack on the rights of trans women or migrant women is an attack on the integrity of the entire movement. Politically, this expansive solidarity is what grants the march its moral authority and strategic depth. It builds a coalition broad enough to be formidable. However, the practice of this solidarity is the movement's greatest internal political challenge. It requires those with relative privilege to actively listen, to yield platform space, to fight for issues that may not impact them directly, and to accept criticism. It is easy to proclaim solidarity in a crowd; it is harder to enact it in the allocation of resources, the composition of speaker lineups, and the prioritization of campaigns. The march is a mass ritual of solidarity, but its political truth is tested in the quieter, more difficult decisions made by the movement's organizers and participants when the streets are empty. ”