Turns out Hampstead swimming ponds are single SEX after all ...

Floeer
People won't necessarily realise if they are shadow banned so they may believe they are contributing to a conversation or countering an argument.
I think it has considerable implications.

With regards ManFriday, it may be that people who have heard interviews or read articles this week would look to find out more.

I presume that they would be more likely to see tweets condemning ManFriday than explaining?

Would they be able to search and find the women involved in ManFriday if they were shadowbanned?

oh thank you R0wantrees that explains maybe why someone's comment was hidden on one of my threads even though it wasn't at all bad.

Shadow banning (also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting) is the act of blocking a user or their content from an online community such that the user does not realize that they have been banned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning

One way round it is to contact the Twitter team and say you are interested in paying for advertising, and hey presto, the ban is lifted.

Article here describes it:
"Twitter Announces More Shadow Banning For Those Having A ‘Negative Impact’"
(extract)
"When Twitter’s software decides that a certain user is “detract[ing] from the conversation,” all of that user’s tweets will be hidden from search results and public conversations until their reputation improves. And they won’t know that they’re being muted in this way; Twitter says it’s still working on ways to notify people and help them get back into its good graces. In the meantime, their tweets will still be visible to their followers as usual and will still be able to be retweeted by others. They just won’t show up in conversational threads or search results by default…

You’ve heard of Twitter jail? Let’s call this Twitter purgatory.

All of this shadow banning will be handled by an algorithm, meaning who gets banned will depend mostly on the reactions of other people. "

hotair.com/archives/2018/05/15/twitter-announces-shadow-banning-negative-impact/

Hi, usual lurker here - what does shadowbanned mean?

Just placemarking

#ManFriday women shadowbanned by new Twitter rules.
twitter.com/hear_woman/status/1003043635712155649

See SwearyG's comments from this weekend on thread:
"I know We Need To Talk and find a middle way but that’s just not on offer is it? Any offers to talk aren’t about finding compromise, they’re about beating us into submission. And when we say no we’re threatened (have had threats of police action and civil action today) and shut down (am shadowbanned)."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3266050-ManFriday-article-in-the-Daily-Mail

sorry,.. I thought I was on a different thead and I've just read LaSqurrl's post:

"I have permission to share this story from a private FB group. I have removed the names - although I did verify this as a true story by finding him on some US prisoner look-up site (there were enough other details to work with). I can ask more questions (like, I assume this was some kind of supported accommodation). This is a quote btw, and pronouns as per the original.

I want to share more details about my homeless client who was murdered in November 2015. Her name was D-- and she was in her early 60's. She befriended an idividual in shelter in his 40's, who is a man named "C" that identifies as a woman. He had no surgical interventions and there was nothing 'feminine' about him. My job entails helping women in shelter find housing, then visiting them at least once a month until they are on their feet. D and C were neighbors and developed a close friendship. In fact, he was present when I went over safety planning with her. Having worked with the homeless population since 2005, there is little that phases me. However, C was overly vulgar, crude, vile, and just downright disgusting, as he enjoyed talking about graphic sex acts he likes to do to other men. I happened to be working one Sunday when I suddenly thought about D and called her. She did not answer and I considered going to her apartment, but decided not to. I found out the next day that she was BRUTALLY murdered by C about 45 minutes after I called her. I am told he stabbed her at least 7 times and slit her throat. Neighbors reported hearing her screaming and as she was dying, C stole her keys, locked the door, and went back to his apartment like nothing happened. There was no mention of any of it in the media and everything was swept under the rug...like she did not matter. Attaching his mugshot. Yes, he is serving a long sentence, but D-- is still dead and maybe she wouldn't be if a man had not been allowed into a woman's shelter.

So it can be a lot more than pervy behaviour, even more than sexual assault. These are the safeguards we are fighting to protect. So you pro-self-IDers can go shove it. Shower curtains stop nothing."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3266198-No-True-Transwoman-transadvocates-question-whether-TW-is-genuine-after-said-TW-sexually-harasses-women-in-homeless-shelter?pg=5

We should, it seems, stop DBS checks anyway since men who are determined to do harm will always get around the rules...

What would happen if next time I'm asked to do a DBS check I refused because 'I don't feel like I'm a paedophile so therefore YOURE the bigot if you don't let me work with children and my offence at being asked is more important than the children's safety'. It's ludicrous.

I think a pithier response to the "blah blah women who've had a hysterectomy are still women eh? blah blah" would be: "As you care so much about this issue, please name me five reasons why a woman might have a hysterectomy. Off you go. I'll accept three if you're struggling".

Because the type of person who would use that argument generally has zero understanding of women's health. It's pure appropriation.

I agree that interviewers should up their game now.

We are beginning to see more critical thought being used in the press.

I think it's been seen, if it's been seen at all, as a very minor issue. But as self id is being pushed through and more likely to become reality, it's going to force a spotlight on the rationale.

Like you say, many of the arguements don't make sense and are likely to offend more people than they convince.

I agree that interviewers should up their game now.

Statement: 'Male predators will always find a way'. Response: 'Are you saying safeguarding is pointless?'

Statement: 'Blah blah hysterectomy ...' Response: 'But only woman CAN have hysterectomies - why are you trying to hijack their medical experiences in a wildly inappropriate way?'

I don't understand why interviewers don't question it though.

It's like the 'the women who have hysterectomies are still women so people who identify as trans women & don't have wombs are therefore women' argument.

(regardless of the lack of empathy for the reasons and/or consequences for those women who have needed this operation. Its just not logical)

It really is but they just throw anything they think might stick.

Its such an illogical argument.

*Whilst its true that some will, a great deal of good has come from a wide range of 'rules' brought in to limit the risk of harm eg Children Act, safeguarding, CRB checks etc etc etc

Exactly this, just because some men will try to find a way, doesn't mean that we shouldn't put measures in place to make it more difficult for them.*

Exactly - you may as well give that argument about any protective measures, as 'those intent on harm will always find a way,' so what's the point of any laws, safeguarding policies, physical protective measures etc then?! Let's not bother with safeguarding to protect children from paedophiles, those intent on abuse will find a way! Let alone fucking INVITING those intent on harming in because of their subjective 'feelings'.

Putting in new safeguards or 'rules' after someone has found a way around them, is exactly how things have evolved for the better. This is why there are enquiries, developments, reflective practise & new or improved measures.

Whilst its true that some will, a great deal of good has come from a wide range of 'rules' brought in to limit the risk of harm eg Children Act, safeguarding, CRB checks etc etc etc

Exactly this, just because some men will try to find a way, doesn't mean that we shouldn't put measures in place to make it more difficult for them.

I've heard the 'argument' made by a few TRAs that men intent on harm will find a way around any rules anyway, so single-sex exemptions won't work.

Whilst its true that some will, a great deal of good has come from a wide range of 'rules' brought in to limit the risk of harm eg Children Act, safeguarding, CRB checks etc etc etc

But talking about it makes me a bigot?!

Yep. Because words are actual violence! But rape and sexual assault and voyeurism aren't. Because we're only women so we have to give in to the menz feelz to make them feel validated and happy.

[sorry typo with his name]

Yes, it works for me. Its hosted by Ramases who was also interviewed alongside Sweary.

see below the section,
"Speaking on the popular Nick Ferrari radio program, Ramses discussed the possible changes in law and explained to the audience and protestors why the new changes were a positive step for the trans, non-binary and non-gender community.

He argued that these protests signify that it’s ok to hate the trans, non-binary and non-gender community. You can hear the full show here: its then embedded

Or not