At a 19yr Old Transwoman being elected a Labour woman’s officer

[bambambini]

Seems the old WO stepped down after alleged bullying and accusation of transphobia. The new WO is a 19 yr old Transwoman - i think who made many of The allegations against the previous WO.

What experience has a 19 yr old TW got to hold this post - weirder than weird.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-teenager-lily-madigan-voted-in-as-a-labour-women-s-officer-mwchkhzq8

Just to be clear, Lily Madigan was appointed in favour of a female candidate but not in the same constituency as Anne Ruzylo.

Lily is also allegedly behind that horrid Twitter Labour Terf site which has now been taken down.

I’m ageist against Lily because I think he’s been played like a violin. If he were older, he would realise this. A young woman wouldn’t be in this position because women have no power

Actually, I'd not accept a natal male of any age in the job. Full stop. (Natal) women of any age welcome.

She didn't directly replace Anne Ruzylo. It's a different constituency.

This is a volunteer role, as I understand it, so I don't know how much work it entails or how much training is on offer. However, from the fact that Lily Madigan has also applied for a Jo Cox scholarship, I would take it that the end goal is to rise through the party hierarchy, seeking political office as a councillor and eventually as an MP.

(Another recognised stepping stone along the way is to become a school governor. That could be interesting. )

Lots of people have very poor judgement when they're in their teens. Lots of people put things on social media that they are not proud of later on. In theory, neither of these things should be a bar to becoming a councillor or MP IF the candidate takes a long, hard look at their internet history, is open and honest about it, makes any necessary apologies at the earliest opportunity and works hard at behaving respectfully and appropriately in future.

19 is very young to develop the necessary maturity for all that.

It's the fact, FACT, that he instigated a bullying campaign to oust the sitting woman's officer, that is the problem. Let's not overlook this. At the tender age of 19 this teenage boy knew exactly what to do in order to gain recognition. Bully your way to the top!

I’m ageist against Lily because I think he’s been played like a violin. If he were older, he would realise this

I've seen older people played similarly and, in fact, I've been 'played' (and I'm older!!).

Lily does come across as immature certainly, but a few comments on here have focussed more on age than (im)maturity.

That is why Mhair Mcalpine got so much publicity, because the level of intelligence and maturity she demonstrated at her age is unusual. So no one should ever be ruled out because of age alone, but it does have some impact.
Even more in this case where he has lived his life as a boy, has only socially transitioned recently i.e. style of hair, clothing and name, and has no personal understanding of issues women face. Alongside the lack of intelligence and maturity.

Does anyone know if he was the only one who offered to do this?

Ah! So he ousted the sitting women's officer. Shitbag.

Lots of people have very poor judgement when they're in their teens. Lots of people put things on social media that they are not proud of later on

So do many older people ... (Donald Trump anyone)? I'm certainly not pro Lily. I think they are a puppet, bully and thug (from what I have read) - but they do not 'speak for' all teens.

Christ alive!!

This is so fucked up.

Actually I wouldn't care how old the officer was if they were passionate about women's rights. There's a 16 year old (I think?) who posts on here who is brilliant and I'd be thrilled if she were elected women's officer.

He is actively misogynist though. He has no interest in women other than taking things away from us.

He was up against a female candidate @brasty (stats are on my thread in feminism). Think he got 5 votes more than she did. He is no more than a political pawn but it's really worried me because it's a line in the sand

He is actively misogynist though. He has no interest in women other than taking things away from us

Exactly. This is the core point.

I thought I'd posted this earlier but appear to have lost it before clicking enter - but I'm still wondering if there's any chance of a trans activist telling us what they believe the definition of a woman to be?

Because all I've seen so far is avoidance of the question

Yetanotherspartacus ...

Yes, I agree to some extent with your point here, but what concerns me is that a significant number of the issues women face in their lives, and that require a political response, do not manifest until women are older.

As a result, many young feminists tend to believe that a reasonable level of "practical equality" has already achieved. They don't realise the extent to which women still face suppressive forces because they have not yet experienced those circumstances: for example, pregnancy and infertility, childbirth and birth damage, the mire that is infant feeding choices and the practicality of breastfeeding in a society that does not realistically support it in terms of familial and social structures, childcare and how it impacts upon women working and earning, wifework and its offspring of emotional and social labour, divorce and the impact upon women, the glass ceiling, the menopause, elder care, the lowly status of the "elderly woman" etc.

And even if they do recognise these issues, there is a tendency to assume, as my generation (GenX) did, that these issues will not affect them when they reach these moments in the life-course because it will all be sorted out by then.

It is for this reason that I believe older women have a vital role to play within political representation and that young woman often simply do not have the life experience to adequately represent and defend "women's issues".

I would even go so far as to suggest that this lack of experience is why so many young feminists are supporting radical trans narratives -- they simply do not have the life experience to inform them of the extent to which such ideas will screw them in a multitude of very real ways as they get older.

Puzzledandpissedoff

Is your question on the other thread?

Cos I answered!

As a result, many young feminists tend to believe that a reasonable level of "practical equality" has already achieved. They don't realise the extent to which women still face suppressive forces because they have not yet experienced those circumstances: for example, pregnancy and infertility, childbirth and birth damage, the mire that is infant feeding choices and the practicality of breastfeeding in a society that does not realistically support it in terms of familial and social structures, childcare and how it impacts upon women working and earning, wifework and its offspring of emotional and social labour, divorce and the impact upon women, the glass ceiling, the menopause, elder care, the lowly status of the "elderly woman" etc

But many older women don't experience these things. Not all women have children, for example. And I have a fundamental problem with seeing these things as somehow defining of womanhood (which was partly why I walked quietly away from radical/socialist feminism in circa 1989). And younger women are facing many things that characterise the experience of womanhood for their generations - sexting, men growing up with pornified ideas of sex and femininity, etc. Some women experience womanhood differently because they wear a hijab or are black or are working class, etc. Many younger women buy the lib fem / fun fem line (hell, I remember when lib fem was the preserve of older women who tended to wear pearls and power suits, but I digress), but not all do and a fair few older women also buy this line and/or think the battle has been won or never existed. It is these views I disagree with, not the age of the believer.

Most women have children though, some of them have children within a forced marriage. Many will instigate divorce, the majority of divorce cases are instigated by women.

My view is that women who do the trans are women thing are perfectly happy to delay parenthood until they are in their mid thirties and beyond. They will have the money to assist in pregnancy, whether it be an ovulation detector or IVF. They will have savings for a home and be earning professional wages. They will have no compunction in organising help to assist them in wifely duties. They feed totally into the gender binary whilst at the same time observing in a sympathetic way that all people should live how they want to. They will always hide their feelings because to expose them is to admit, somehow, that this is a female trait. And who wants to admit to this whilst at a reasonable position in the career ladder?

@user1467297746 But there are other Transwanna be's who are kidding themselves and fooling nobody - there should be a way to deal with that situation.

Problem is, your friend and the “Transwanna be's” will be classed as the same and there will be no way to remove the latter, potentially predatory violent person from a safe space that he is currently not able to be in (or at least can be instantly identified and the requisite fuss kicked up). If your friend has transitioned, then they are at just as much at risk as natal women in spaces they would have previously been safe in.

Make no mistake, the “Transwanna be's” we are all up in arms about are dangerous; and a million miles away in ideology and gender dysphoria that your friend experienced. They just want to dominate women and kick the doors down to get access to them. You can work out why. You can also work out what the chances are they will go after your friend too.

Is your question on the other thread?

You're right, it is ... this whole thing is frying what passes for my mind so much that I forgot where I'd put my post!!

I’m ageist against Lily because I think he’s been played like a violin. If he were older, he would realise this. A young woman wouldn’t be in this position because women have no power
what power does she have and Theresa may would be surprised that she has no power i think you meant women in the labour party have no power

I’m ageist against Lily because I think he’s been played like a violin. If he were older, he would realise this.

I'm not sure. The trans activists I have come across have been older. They have just surrounded themselves with a circle who all think and feel the same because of this victim mentality they have learned early on. It's the 'chip on the shoulder' trap.

What I noticed about Lily on FB was every comment was supportive, and as a previous poster demonstrated any questions that didn't 100% fall into line with the victimhood were deleted immediately.

What Lily is doing is deliberately creating an echo chamber to shut down debate because any and all debate is transphobic. Because Lily is so blinkered and scared of answering anything different.

So Lily can't learn and grow and question either. Lily is imprisoned by Lily's own immature definitions with no way to break out, being it's socially constrained in a cult like structure.

It also means that Lily is incapable of representing any idea or problem outside of Lily's bubble because Lily has deliberately restricted who Lily has contact and conversation was.

Lily's job role is to broaden the women coming into the party locally. But Lily's personality does not match that objective. It will bring a particular type of person into the party but it won't broaden women's membership. Conversely it will narrow the views expressed within the local party.

The main problem is the narrow mindedness. Mixed with the immaturity and the overwhelming sense if righteousness, where criticism isn't taken constructively but personally it's dangerous.

RedToothBrush

You’ve just described every transactivist I’ve come across. Minus the rape threats.

Describes Momentum mentality perfectly as well!

Datun, that would be because trans-activism is apolitical cult

Everything about trans-activism is related to an authoritarian approach to promoting trans rights.

It has taken me a very long time to really work out, just why trans-activism really bothered me so much. I have really struggled in the past with reconciling my liberalism with the trans agenda.

Something about the way it was being pushed made me feel uncomfortable, its wasn't purely what was being pushed and the ideology it represented.

Politics at the moment in western society, is being driven by a number of different political cults, so there is a pattern of behaviour. Political cults are the preserve of both the far left and the far right, where authoritarian tendencies lie. And trans-activism very much fails into this. Its only when there has been a lot more discussion of this, that the penny has dropped and I've better understood, my own personal conflict over it.

The framing and the propaganda that goes with trans-activism says its liberal, yet the way it is being pushed is not. The creation and use of language is a tell. It is used to distort meaning. As are 'fake facts', which when you scratch at them, they fall apart very quickly and with little effort.

Cults rely on the idea of belief. This is why you will never get 'true believers' engaging with the questions of 'outsiders' or those who they have cast into the role of 'the enemy'. You either believe or you don't. Non believers will be cast into hell. Any questioning of individuals in the cult is framed as 'persecution' rather than normal debate. There is no such thing and constructive criticism. All criticism is an attack on the entire group and its entire being.

The language of trans-activism also owes a great deal to propaganda techniques. Others have made the Orwell comparison about Transwoman is Woman. Orwell was anti-authoritarian and saw the danger in it.

Real liberalism, is based on consensus building and persuasion that there is a shared objective, goal or interest in pursuing a certain course which is then socially led rather than led by law. Laws may then be built to protect the consensus. Authoritarian approaches force the law first and enforce it socially by aggressive means, but do not necessarily change beliefs under the surface. They just supress them.

Trans Authoritarianism has dangers for its own members too though. In promoting something which has no basis in reality, at some point there is a collision with reality in one way or another which can come as an extreme shocking and be very difficult for those individuals to cope with, because they have built up their identity around that and have a support network based around people who share that. If members of the cult start to ask questions, they themselves find themselves cast out for not being true believers by 'rocking the boat'. You only belong if you believe.

Religious cult survivors talk about the isolation of being on the 'outside' and can suffer from PTSD.

This also means that trans-activism has a problem too. Its built on a reality that doesn't exist, so if something happens or a pattern emerges which undermines it the whole thing could collapse in itself as the hold it has on people disappears and can no longer be enforced. That's is also why it is so aggressive in trying to avoid even the tiniest crack to 'the belief'.

Can anyone argue to the contrary?