So, hands up if you have been blocked by LM on Twitter?

[Stormwhale]

Due to the fact that I have never actually had any contact with LM, and had only liked (or did the heart thing - I'm a bit Twitter illiterate) 2 comments on a Twitter feed (1 - very politely pointed out that LM has not actually spoken about a single women's issue since being in the role and 2 - pointed out, again politely, that LM seems to be more interested in trans issues than women's issues).. I'm going to assume it doesn't take much to be blocked by LM.

I have never posted anything derogatory or even commented on anything to do with LM On Twitter.

Have I managed to be no platformed without actually saying a word?

There's been a big discussion on another thread, I forget which, that concluded it was for the best to not use male pronouns for LM in order to make life easier for MNHQ. It's safe to assume they're coming under increasing pressure in the form of legal threats from TRA organisations to heavily moderate or shut down any gender critical debate on the forums. Ridiculous I know but it's more important to keep the debate going and get the word out there. So, if you can't bring yourself to use female pronouns for LM (I can't) then try to use initials or their name instead. I feel hideous advising what people should or shouldn't say, do want to keep the debate going...

Not engaging with every one of your critics on twitter doesn't mean you aren't representing your constituents. As a student I worked for a Member of the Scottish Parliament and they had plenty of people blocked on Twitter. Twitter isn't an official communication channel for public figures, and no-one should be obliged to face the criticism of every person who disagrees with them on Twitter. It's draining, miserable, and bad for mental health. Elected officials have offices, email addresses and telephone numbers for their constituents to contact them. The casual and often anonymous criticism and even abuse from strangers via twitter is not something they are required to engage with.

Ask yourself this - if Stella Creasy were to block a man who liked several tweets accusing her of being a feminazi and failing to represent her constituents, or who replied to a tweet agreeing that she is bad at her job and shouldn't have been elected, would you accept that she had a right to block him? Or would you demand that she continue to engage with him, no matter how disrespectful and obviously hostile he was?

I think that's a bit different. From what I can make out, LM has proactively blocked people who've never interacted with @madigan_lily at all. I've seen some forthright tweets sent to LM but nothing anything like as nasty as the stuff routinely sent to gender critical women. Debating skills and a thick skin are conspicuously lacking in LM's case.

DetCoke, you are ignorant of some facts. Madigan is the one who says they do not represent women who refuse to agree with Madigan regarding Madigan's beliefs. You are referring to women as Madigan critics without them ever criticizing Madigan. How does that work exactly??

On second thought, it seems to me on the basis of the straw man arguments you are presenting diet coke girrrrrl, Never mind.

I don't think it is different. Everyone knows what their own limits are - maybe one or two tweets is easy to ignore but the cumulative effect is too much. What one person thinks is fine could be distressing to another. LM is entitled to set her own limits on Twitter, and I do think it's a stretch to take that as a sign that she's totally unwilling to engage in debate. After all, she wouldn't be where she is now if she hadn't spent a lot of time in the public eye defending her views and putting her point across to an audience.

Thebewilderness where have I made straw man arguments?

I must confess I can't make sense of your first message because of your attempts to avoid using pronouns. If you can find a way of making your point more clearly I'll try to respond.

I must confess I can't make sense of your first message because of your attempts to avoid using pronouns

Why do you think that might be? Might it be to avoid calling a male by a female pronoun?

...I do think it's a stretch to take that as a sign that she's totally unwilling to engage in debate.
We took Madigan's word for their unwillingness to engage in discussion or debate. I suggest you do the same.

@thebewilderness refusing to debate with specific people is not the same as refusing to ever debate anything ever. For example, many Jewish activists will not debate with holocaust deniers. Does that mean they aren't willing to engage with their critics? Or should they be entitled to refuse?

Madigan is supposed to be a Women's Officer. This is a position intended to promote women's rights and recruit women to the Labour Party. Not promote the issues of trans identified males exclusively and trump those of actual women.

For example, many Jewish activists will not debate with holocaust deniers.

Interesting loaded comparison. Totally in good faith, I'm sure.

@ereshikal the issue here is that you're behaving as though your belief that trans issues aren't women's issues is a fact, rather than simply being your opinion. Others hold a different opinion, and the fact is LM was elected to the position she holds on a mandate of, among other things, promoting the rights of transwomen. She is therefore fulfilling the role she was elected to do.

It's not an opinion that Madigan is male any more than it's an opinion that the Holocaust never happened. Do you see what I did there?

Material reality has a well know transphobic bias.

LM was elected to the position she holds on a mandate of, among other things, promoting the rights of transwomen. She is therefore fulfilling the role she was elected to do. (Emphasis mine)

Not if LM is ignoring said 'other things'.

Please provide evidence that LM has routinely promoted the rights of actual women - or rights that affect women and feminine-identifying individuals to equal degrees.

In your opinion. Not in mine. Not in the eyes of those who elected her. That's democracy in action - you're welcome to try and get a candidate who you consider more suitable elected next time. That would also be democracy. I suspect you would struggle though, on the basis that the arc of history is (albeit slowly) bending towards justice, and trans rights are increasingly enshrined in law and recognised in society. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong though - I would certainly never be complacent about it.

Madigan doesn't give a single fuck about actual women.

To be honest I doubt, as an obvious troll, Madigan gives a fuck about much at all apart from feeding that narcissistic supply.

I suspect you would struggle though, on the basis that the arc of history is (albeit slowly) bending towards justice,

You're funny

At the moment history is bending toward authoritarian male dominance. We intend to redirect it toward justice.

This.

Well, as I said - perhaps next time you'll manage to get a candidate you prefer elected. In the meantime I'm very happy with the situation as it stands, and I personally have no qualms (as a cis woman) about LM's ability to represent me and my sisters (trans, cis or otherwise).

I'm sure you are. You're all right, Jackie, aren't you?