Appraising impoliteness on X: A case study of Isabel Díaz Ayuso

[EN] This study applies Appraisal Theory to analyze evaluative patterns in digital political impoliteness, examining how systematic deployment of Judgment and Graduation resources functions as a form of pragmatic exclusion in hostile replies to Spanish politician Isabel Diaz Ayuso on X (formerly Twitter). Through manual annotation of 498 Spanish-language hostile replies collected between April and May 2025, we coded for five Judgment categories (Capacity, Tenacity, Normality, Veracity, Propriety) and intensification mechanisms (Force, Focus). Results reveal that Social Sanction judgments, such as Propriety- (63.5 %) and Veracity- (20.4 %), sharply outweigh Social Esteem evaluations, indicating a focus on moral delegitimization over competence critique. Intensification was present in 70.1 % of replies, realized through typography, repetition, irony, and emoji. Notably, 29.5 % of replies contained gendered language, disproportionately associated with Propriety- and Normality-judgments (¿2 = 52.85, p < 0.000001), suggesting gendered language disproportionately co-occurs with moral and behavioral judgments. Eleven recurrent impoliteness strategies were identified, often combining multiple negative evaluations with multimodal amplification. This case study introduces the concept of evaluative gatekeeping to describe how hostile replies may use neutral-seeming assessment to challenge political legitimacy in gendered terms. These findings suggest that digital hostility toward female political figures may center on moral judgment rather than policy critique, raising implications for pragmatic exclusion and gendered participation in online political discourse.