Lily Madigan tweets

[TwistedStitch]

Not sure if this has already been posted. Lily Madigan, the women's officer, saying that a group of women they disagree with can go fuck themselves. Labour are a fucking joke.

Why does Lemon Margarita have a paypal link on their twitter. Am I sod clicking on it

Wow that’s an unsolvable need for personal validation and a vast number of the general public who are apparently ‘trash’ isn’t it.

Lily's whole political "career" is based around people talking about them. Kind of like Katie Hopkins. If we stop talking about LM, they won't exist as much. They need the oxygen of publicity/ controversy to survive.

From now onwards, I’m just going to repost this on all LM related threads without further comment...

LM doesn't give a stuff about women. Trans issues are their only concern. Lily is a disgrace to the position and is the reason why I turned my back on the Labour party.

Would that be "kinder gentler politics?"

A Labour official tweets something abusive about women and the whole thread turns into a discussion about what we are allowed to say about it and the person that tweeted it, and being advised not to make it “a pile on”, as if that abusive person is the victim here. And people wonder how women’s voices are being silenced

I realise that moderating this site is hard, and that there are often grey areas, but this issue really disturbs me. We can say that Ian Huntley is male, without deletion. Surely the only reason for this is that the entire site would be in uproar if we had to refer to Ian as a woman, with his chosen woman name, which happens, by astonishing coincidence , to be the name of one of the mothers of the girls he murdered.
However we can’t refer to other random people as male. So when males commit nasty crimes that all women are repulsed by, we can speak the truth about their sex on here, but if someone is verbally abusing women and trying to remove their sex based rights, we can’t ? Is that really the state of play ? Because I never use the word male to be provocative, or to hurt someone, I use it when it is accurate and in the context of someone behaving in a way congruent with their sex. I really, really hate having to twist language into ridiculous coils in order not to use a word that is demonstrably the truth.

Ah, that's Lily's Daily Mail sad-face Lily's just so sad, Lily has to send out aggressive tweets to women.

She made me do it? Sounds like a familiar excuse. Where have I heard that before?

Ok so we aren’t allowed to say that Lily is a [you know what goes here]. Are we allowed to replace any references to Lily being a woman with [redacted]? Because it would be untrue to say they are the W word, so we can redact it, yes?

OK, just seeing this thread, but the fact you're saying Lily is a you know what goes here and the words redacted to the rest?
OK. What are you trying to say? As you wouldn't be redacted and hidden for nothing.

It wasn’t redacted and hidden. I wrote “[redacted]” as in instead of saying “Lily is a woman” we can write “Lily is a [redacted]” so as to avoid writing a mistruth. We aren’t allowed to write the actual truth, but we can’t be forced to say a mistruth either.

SirVixofVixHall

Yes, there seems to be a continuum of allowance of accurately describing the sex of a person:

Person tweets abusive message - not allowed

Person is convicted of rape, sexual assault, paedophilia - allowed.

So that big gap in the middle: where’s the line where biological accuracy is allowed to be stated? Are women only allowed to do so when that person has been deemed vile enough? By other people? Who gets to decide that? It doesn’t seem to be the women the abuse is aimed at, that’s for sure.

And how public and official can a person be before a thread can be considered a pile on? Corbyn? May? Trump? Kavanaugh? Local political person tweeting? Any guidance on that would be welcome too.

Ah, that's Lily's Daily Mail sad-face sad Lily's just so sad, Lily has to send out aggressive tweets to women.
This is not a personal attack pile on if not unchallenged how?

LM is dull and predictable now. Just to report within the party but not to bother about otherwise

It's a discussion of an individual's unbecoming conduct, Verbena, you person who comes across as a twit.

So no, not a pile on. LM tweeted publicly in their capacity as...well, apparently as a Women's Officer, although I think LM has long forgotten their brief.

Legitimate discussion has ensued. I don't think LM is participating here to be piled on, although LM does do a nice line in lurking & screenshotting.

I suspect there is a MNHQ element of ‘life is too short”

So would Ian Huntley fuse MN for misgendering him. Or Jacinta. No, though you almost hope they would as it would seriously peak trans half the country.

Might Lily, Stephanie or Guiliana report posts whose content they find offensive. Yes they might. I hate to think of the grief MN admins have had over the past couple of years. I can understand why, until there is some case law over what constitutes ‘hate’, that they err on the side of caution.

This is not a personal attack pile on if not unchallenged how?

Can you try that again please?

Sue, not fuse...

Oh you so funny, Lily.

Why is that funny? Surely going by some of the tweets on here if you said women's rights are important too alongside trans rights, it'd get dismissed. As some won't accept trans rights are a thing too.

Can someone link to the medical journal that is citing that women can now have penises please?