Titiania McGrath suspended from Twitter, then returns in glory and defiance

December 13, 2018 • 9:30 am

You may be aware of Titania McGrath, apparently the reincarnation of Godfrey Elfwick. Both Titania and Godfrey trolled the Authoritarian Left by pretending to be social justice warriors and mocking the extremes of that ideology. In fact, both Titania and Godfrey were so convincing that their tweets were taken seriously by some SJWs, and non-SJW liberals like Sam Harris.

As we know, there’s no distance between reality and satire when you’re dealing with the Authoritarian Left. When they start calling out General Tso’s Chicken (not even a real Chinese dish) for being inappropriately cooked and a case of cultural appropriation, then you know you’ve entered the twilight zone. And so there was a gaping niche that Godfrey and then Titania sought to fill.

After “Godfrey” published a spoof piece in 2016 that fooled the Guardian, and then spewed a bunch of tweets that were considered offensive (as I said, there’s no humor on the Regressive Left), he was finally banned by Twitter last year.

After a period of quiescence, however, an Elfwick clone appeared in the form of the magnificent Titania McGrath (see his/her/their/zir/its Twitter feed).  Here are a few of Titania’s recent tweets:



Titania was notable for his/her/their/zir/its poetry, and produced some magnificent specimens of lyrical and appropriately angry Social Justice Poems. Here’s one:But then Titania was also banned from Twitter. It didn’t last long:


And her reappearance on Twitter was celebrated in the Spectator by none other than. . . Godfrey Elfwick! (Click on screenshot). Clearly, the Spectator is in on the joke.

Now Claire Lehmann, who’s also in on the joke, has enlisted Titania to recount her Twitter Troubles on Quillette. It’s pure McGrath, as you can tell from the title (click on screenshot):

If you’re not familiar with hir, here’s how it begins:

My name is Titania McGrath. I am a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice, and armed peaceful protest. In April of this year, I decided to become more industrious on social media. I was inspired by other activists who had made use of their online platforms in order to spread their message and explain to people why they are wrong about everything.

This week the powers-that-be at Twitter hit my account with a “permanent suspension” (a semantic contradiction, but then I suppose bigots aren’t known for their grammatical prowess). This was the latest in a series of suspensions, all of which were imposed because I had been too woke. The final straw appeared to be a tweet in which I informed my followers that I would be attending a pro-Brexit march so that I could punch a few UKIP supporters in the name of tolerance.

. . . and the ending:

Unfortunately, those who fight for the progressive cause are continually bombarded by alt-right trolls who like to engage in a form of harassment known as “debate.” Only a few days before my suspension, a misogynist referred to me as “shrill and humourless.”  As I was quick to point out, humour is a patriarchal construct. This is why it has been so gratifying to see the success of our current wave of feminist comedians, those brave women who are subverting the genre by ensuring that it doesn’t make anyone laugh.

Do not pity me. As a woman in a heteronormative patriarchal world I am accustomed to males like Jack Dorsey attempting to keep me silent. In my absence from Twitter, I took the opportunity to spend some time at a resort in Val d’Isère, where I could relax and contemplate my oppression. I even managed to write a book which I have entitled Woke: A Guide to Social Justice. I did want to call it My Struggle, but that title was already taken apparently.

I am a healer, a weaver of dreams. I have been put on this earth to defend minorities and fight for social justice. My work is not about ego. It is so much bigger than me. So please make sure you spread the word about my new book so that as many copies as possible can be sold.

Titania is a breath of fresh air in the toxic atmosphere produced by entitled Leftists.  And now, it seems (and only seems, as this may be another joke), that Ms./Mr./Womnyx McGrath has a book in the offing. He/she/zir/its announces it below, and it’s even listed on Amazon UK, scheduled for release in early March of next year (details, of course, are very scanty). Is it for real? Who knows? But it should be required summer reading for all students who are about to start college.


80 thoughts on “Titiania McGrath suspended from Twitter, then returns in glory and defiance

      1. That may not have been a real article, but…sex with cacti is not fanciful. Unfortunately, I learned of a practice whereby men take the fruit of prickly pears, scoop out the seeds and use them to masturbate. I say unfortunately, because there are some practices that I don’t need or care to know about.

        If they’re not buying the fruit from a grocer, they risk having incredibly painful private parts because the prickly pears “are covered in glochids which are like little hair-like splinters that can stick into your skin and are very painful and very hard to see.” I once brushed my arm against a prickly pear cactus and both my arm and my clothes were filled with scores and scores, perhaps hundreds, of almost imperceptible hairs, almost impossible to pull out even with tweezers, and prone to break off at skin level. I threw away the shirt, and it took days for the skin irritation to dissipate, and I never got all of them out.

        Then there is “piquerism.”

        1. 8-(

          When I was in my early teens (probably), I ‘escaped’ from my bedroom window one night – just because I could – but there was a cactus underneath it.

          I gave up thoughts of roaming round the garden and spent the next hour kneeling on the bed pulling near-invisible hairs out of my butt.

          (I’d completely forgotten that incident until now).


        2. I say unfortunately, because there are some practices that I don’t need or care to know about.

          I am reminded of a 1970s song which I’m still not sure I understand. The line in question is that “the baker told me what you do with bread”.

    1. Dendrophilia, or a love of trees.


      “”However, the word ‘dendrophilia’ has now been adopted by some in the sexology field to refer to those who have a fetishistic or paraphilic interest in trees (i.e., individuals who derive sexual pleasure, sexual arousal and/or are sexually attracted to trees). This may involve actual sexual contact with trees and/or (as Raymond Corsini notes in his 1999 Dictionary of Psychology) veneration as phallic symbols


      A fairly recent British case of dendrophilia came to light when 21-year old Scottish man received a lifetime ban from Airdrie’s Central Park for attempting to have sex with one of the trees (with The Sun winning the best headline with “Fancy a treesome?”).”””

      1. Imagine that you had dendrophilia for a philodendron? Though not a tree but perhaps you had dendrophilia for the tree the philodendron was on.

        1. So would that be philodendronphilia, philodendrondendrophilia, or philodendrondendrondendrophilia? Erotobotany is beyond me.

            1. eroticobotany

              Ummm, aren’t you committing an abomination there? Greek and Latin roots in one word?
              And I just bet there is a paraphiia associated with that.

              1. Greek and Latin in one word and Latinized Greek are grave sins but funny when done ironically.

              2. Oops, this relates to my earlier comment here. I have to start lookin’ up big words I don’t know before I comment.

              1. I keep thinking of that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry Seinfeld was called an “anti-dentite” by a dentist for making fun of dentists. This particular dentist had converted to Judaism purely “for the jokes” and when asked if it bothered him as a Jewish person, Seinfeld replied, “No! It offends me as a comedian”.

    2. Aren’t some cacti considered foodstuffs, and so presumably in good taste? For some people’s value of “taste”.
      What is that stuff that gets scored on a Scoffed Scale and some people consider edible?

    1. Ah yes, This is That, the show that takes a probing look at Canada, “North America’s third largest country”. My brother, who’s a big fan, and I were just talking about the show, and he specifically mentioned the bilingual-dog episode. What I’d like to know is whether the calls from “actual listeners” (often irate) at the end of the show really are from actual listeners or whether that’s false like everything else on the show!

      1. Yes, I wonder that too – are the calls people who didn’t understand it was satire or are they are satire of such people? Such is the brilliance of the show….walking the fine line between outright deception and satire. Knowing when to give just enough to people so they can figure that it’s satire (even though I’m sure that some never do).

      1. Well, yes, but Marxism has been moribund for years and that still informs people whop call themselves intellectuals. I suspect this is one reason why Jordan Peterson is much reviled for being mildly rebuking of some of its more hilariously preposterous elements: Its reminding people that the horse is dead?

  1. Lol, it’s therapeutic to be able to laugh at some of this scary mob mentality stuff!

    Honestly, I think college kids should get something of a pass on this stuff, as it’s the job of every generation to figure out what they can do that will annoy their elders the most (we just got drunk and lit stuff on fire in the streets when I was that age, but hey, to each his own.) It’s the adults in the room supporting this that is mind boggling.

    I think what bugs me the most about this attitude is that it’s almost entirely “Tell don’t show”, which is of course the opposite of what you’re supposed to do in about any endeavor. I have an esoteric list of people that I admire from all walks of life (usually academic on the one hand and spiritual on the other, with the occasional artist mixed in,) and admittedly, I am prone to trying to weave my beliefs into nonsense that make people of all creeds and beliefs facepalm. But if I say something like “Ok, so, the thing is, Noah’s ark was real, it’s just that the animals were every kind of hadron and the flood was a storm of mini black holes and the ark was Hawking Radiation. See, I’ve drawn it all in this adorable illustration, look at all those cute little quarks getting on the ark!”, then my hometown priest will purse his lips and refrain from saying anything but continue to walk around being Bodhisattva like while continuing to believe in Noah’s ark, making me think “Hey, I don’t know, maybe believing in arks is good for people, look at how saintly he is.” A scientist would likely ask “Are you having some sort of seizure?” first and, after assessing my medical safety, hand me a book on physics. A dharma teacher might briefly mention how a proliferation of thoughts disturbs one’s peace before demonstrating their own inner peace and quietude.

    Anyways. We are creatures who learn via mirroring and social modeling. If you run around angrily screeching at people all the time, you’re not teaching them anything about acceptance, you’re teaching them to run around angrily screeching. Now if you’ll excuse me, I must return to painting my depiction of leptons getting on the ark, kawaii style.

    1. I remember Al Capps’s unfortunate characterization of protesters as SWINE:
      Students Wildly Indignant About Nearly Everything.

    2. In my Older Age I regale in annoying annoying youngsters (but not non-annoying youngsters) in return.

      I recall a news item from a couple of decades or so ago. A 7-11 Store proprietor ran off the louche louts loitering in front of his store by playing Mantovani on the outside speakers.

  2. This kind of stuff reminds me of David Thompson’s excellent blog. All mordant and well-written, witty in a light way. But you go there often enough and you realise that the blindspot they have about conservatism and the inherent ridiculousness of gun-nuts, and religious fundamentalists, and Trump, and Brexit, is even bigger than the illiberal left’s blindspot about its own ridiculousness. Which wouldn’t be a problem if people like Elfwick didn’t always portray themselves as free-thinking and politically independent.

    Students are obnoxious? Well, I mean okay. Good point…I guess.
    Anything about, say, the NRA’s unhinged video from a while back, where they threatened a kind of armed warfare against liberals? Anything about Tommy Robinson’s fascist goon brigade turning up for a demonstration to unconvincingly chant ‘we love Europe’ while simultaneously waving banners about ‘Brexit traitors’? Or is that not as open to satire as transgender people writing silly poetry?

    Again, if you’re open about being partisan this stuff is fine. It’s the insufferable pose of disinterested-defender-of-reason that begins to wear after a while.

    1. You demand that every satirists equally divvy out their attention among every single subject worthy of satire?

      You seem to not realize that the creative minds behind McGrath, Elfwick, et al. are themselves left-of-center. What you consider a ‘blind spot’ is instead a meet & good focus on the threat arising from inside our own camp.

      1. “You seem to not realize that the creative minds behind McGrath, Elfwick, et al. are themselves left-of-center.”

        I call bullshit on that for the simple reason that they are utterly silent on right-wing ridiculousness.

        1. I’d also note that ‘they’ talk about the alt-right engaging in harmless debate as opposed to doxxing and hurling death threats. Not that it matters, but they’re definitely not ‘left-of-centre’ with those kind of views.

        2. 1) No True Scotsman fallacy;

          2) How, exactly, would a persona like TM mock right wingers without breaking out of character? You don’t get satire;

          3) FYI, I’m personally equated with the person behind the original Godfrey Elfwick, and they’re a bona fide liberal;

          4) Perhaps one of the reasons there’s a (n alleged) dearth of satire of the right is because SJWs have no sense of humor.

    2. There are many who mock and parody the loons to the right of us. That is the venue of every major branch of comedy, especially as presented on late night talk shows.
      But what about the loons to the left of us? Agreed they are not as dangerous (probably). But still, mockery is a legitimate way to fight back. i only wish it would make it to network television.

          1. I don’t know why, but Stephen Colbert just doesn’t seem very funny anymore, now that he’s transitioned into a real person. Lovely guy though.

            As a Brit it’s only now struck me how much great comedy I missed out on due to Conan not being available on our channels. He’s an icon to me.

        1. Maher also gratuitously mocks those (in his show and concert audiences) who wear sweater vests and still use AOL. At what moment in the past did it become not “cool” to use AOL? Is it not “cool” anymore to use email? (I’m reminded of a pg.1 NY Times article six-eight years ago when a thirteen-year-old was quoted, omnisciently announcing to the Universe, “Email is so lame!”)

          I contemplate sending Maher a sweater vest with the AOL logo on it.

      1. I respectfully disagree that few people mock them. It’s precisely because there is an absolute slew of online accounts, YouTube channels, websites and blogs that do literally nothing but aggregate stories about ‘stupid lefties’ that I think this is such a vacuous enterprise.
        I think you’re right that in ‘traditional media’, like TV, the emphasis is on mockery of the right. And I find people like Samantha Bee almost equally annoying. I’ve said so ibn the past.
        But when it comes to the internet the emphasis is on mockery of the left. These are not hard targets, which is fine. Gateway Pundit, College Fix, etc. all the YouTube channels compiling ‘SJW Fails’, all the Twitter accounts doing the same, all the blogs…these people are not stentorian heroes on a quest to iron out the kinks in our polarised society. They’re partisans. Godfrey Elfwick is different only in that, much like Jonathan Pie, he pretends to be a kind of neutral, rational voice, yet becomes mute when anything outside of the comfortably clickbaity field of ‘SJW fails’ happens. Nothing on any other political issues.

        Again, that’s fine but don’t pretend you’re on some kind of crusading quest to restore sanity to politics if you only speak out of one corner of your mouth.

    3. Are you familiar with the phrase “spoiled for choice”? Or “target-rich environment”? A comedian attempting to mock everything silly in our culture would have a very busy time of it!

      Never assume that because someone mocks X, they necessarily must support Y, are avoiding mocking Y, or…well, holds any view on Y whatever. That’s tribalistic, Us vs Them, with-us-or-against-us thinking at its worst.

      1. Are you familiar with the phrase “spoiled for choice”? Or “target-rich environment”?

        The address is (ICBM format) 38°53′52″N 77°02′11″W or (postal) 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington (not Tyne & Wear, the other one).
        I am vaguely disappointed that Washington T&W hasn’t named a street “Pennsylvania Avenue” I would have thought that would appeal to the average Geordie.

        1. I like the idea of The Donald living next to a Jimmy Nail type in Newcastle. Sitcom material right there.

      2. I don’t immediately think because someone only chooses a very narrow avenue of attack that they should therefore, to balance things out, attack _everyone on earth arbitrarily_. It’s possible to find a sane balance.

        And I believe it’s an intentional thing, it’s a political decision, to ignore one entire side of the culture wars in favour of concentrating on students/SJWs being obnoxious. How can it not be? Any satirist on earth who was even vaguely politically neutral would look at Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, William Rees-Mogg, the utter shambles of Brexit, gun-nuts, Infowars, Q Anon, etc. and dive in like a fat kid into a cake.

        Like others have said Bill Maher is capable of satirising both sides. Sam Harris is capable of doing it. It’s not like quantum mechanics. It’s not that hard.

    4. Which wouldn’t be a problem if people like Elfwick didn’t always portray themselves as free-thinking and politically independent.

      When did this happen? Godfrey Elfwick on twitter is a parody account who identifies as a “genderqueer Muslim atheist”. I believe at least two people have written it.

    5. Brendan O’Neill, the editor of Spiked!Online and a lifelong Marxist, has explained that the left has moved away from it’s liberal values, which is why he spends a lot of time criticizing the left and not the right.

      I criticize the far left for the same reasons,and it would not surprise me if those who satirize Antifa and other groups (who keep beating up Jewish and black people who have the wrong opinions) do so because Antifa and those who support them are authoritarian to the core and a very real danger.

    1. I wonder how that would work with aliens…Assuming the parts lined up sufficiently to allow adult fun times, how WOULD we determine age of consent? I mean, there’s no reason to assume that aliens age the same rate we do (and ample reason not to). Kirk could be a pedophile, or could have been getting it on with the equivalent of folks in nursing homes!

      1. Yes, there was that person on Voyager that was only 2 but looked adult to us as she only lived 10 years. I’m pretty sure Kirk probably slept with young and old alike even if they were members of the Orion Syndicate.

  3. So, was it true that they posted they were going to punch some Brexiters on a march? If so, the ban was obviously the right thing to do – because you can’t expect Twitter to be constantly keeping track of which accounts are parodies. The nature of Twitter is that the short tweets are going to be read in isolation from stuff posted earlier.

    I’m missing where the “glory” is. Is it that they established they didn’t mean it about the punching, so were allowed back on? Is that really “glorious”?

      1. Meh – You sound like someone who wants Twitter to be a safe space for right wingers. Without evidence, you claim there’s some bias against the right wing. From a multi-billion dollar commerical operation. So you blame it, again with evidence, on one person.

  4. She’s an absolute hoot! She made people on G+ go crazy before we figured her out. Nothing like a little stinging satire to make Lefty lose his Shiite.

Leave a Reply