A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.Original point: "You cannot call yourself an ally. It is a compliment given to you, not one you can just take. Actions speak louder than words"
Your rebuttal: "Restricting what people call themselves leads to more toxicity than people just calling themselves an ally"
No one was arguing about how much toxicity there is. Nor has anyone argued about which approach is "more or less toxic". The actual point was something different, and you have used made-up quotes from irrelevant people who have nothing to do with this conversation or topic whatsoever to debate a point no one was talking about.
This fits the definition of a strawman pretty bang-on, I'd say.
I then engaged with your argument, directly addressing, interacting with and refuting it, before asking follow-up questions. How is that a strawman?